Full text of "The Lord's command to baptise [microform] ; an historico-critical investigation, with special reference to the works of Eusebius of Caesarea .."

See other formats

ity oFCbicaQO

EXCHANGE DISSERTATIONS

t;SS V->:V sv.-' '-' ',. \' , '

> ,

: - ;

1 ,".i'i.. .:-.:. . $ft'ri. ' 's' : ;,,a -'EKraS'SiSSSI

' -.-".

, ' , ' '

,' ' . - .

V ' - >,*.

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

> l f j *

NEW. TESTAMENT STUDIES

i >

. ' NO* V-

T'MI^IKK'S COMMAND TO .BAPTISE

1 ' ' ' - T ; /-;* - ^.v'v ' <s ''i ,'.',;' V-' -'"'' '':/'"' / . , <:
^^^Sl^i^GiR^ INVESTl^ION

I '!,*,< V, 'V < *S'I " *> 1 f / * , ^' J 1C 'M 1 ' ' i, - 1 , ' < > y '

, ; 4^%5;^v^i J'-'^V/ '>" , : ^ ;/.^, l /: ; .\ %I . s ,,;;^ - :

*:ii '^ ,i' ,..*". V*; r \Vy*f^TY v ' OTYTJ/-IT A T"'' TT?*? i c'T'r? i io'/ ; ^Tj ) 'T>/^ - nnurT7 fT7'r^ i D > Erc' "'

RElFERENCfe TO THE WORKS

EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

. ,,- . .

'< SXJBMITTED TO THE FAGDLTY OF THE SACKED SCIENCES AT THE CATHOLIC

'' C,'. -' " ''"' 1 I \" ' ' r ,

, ' \TJHIVBBSITT OF AMEBIOA IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

J * t < "

. t / * f ' ' ' EEQIHEEMENTS FOB THE DOCTORATE IN THEOLOGY ' . ,

BERNARD HENRY CUNEO, O. F. M., S. T. L.

SANTA BAEBARA, CAT.TFOBNIA

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA
, WASHINGTON, D. C.

1923

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA

NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES
NO, V-

THE LORD'S COMMAND TO BAPTISE

AN HISTORICO-CRITICAL INVESTIGATION

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE WORKS

OF
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SACKED SCIENCES AT THE CATHOLIC
UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE!

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DOCTORATE IN THEOLOGY ,

BERNARD HENRY CUNEO, O. F. M., S. T. L.

SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA
WASHINGTON, D. C.

1923

4 " V

< J <

t *

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSE^ '.OP AMERICA-. ;

: : :' *. " ; : -

NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

T *r .

|i n l ..* *

THE LORD'S COMMAND TO BAPTISE

AN HISTORICO-CRITICAL INVESTIGATION

WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE WORKS

OF
EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

SDtoertation

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE SACRED SCIENCES AT THE CATHOLIC

UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE

REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DOCTORATE IN THEOLOGY

BERNARD HENRY CUNEO, O. F. M., S. T. L.

SANTA BARBARA, CALIFORNIA

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA
WASHINGTON, D. C.

1923

" * .
::*':

I <

V I) 1

Nihil Obstat.

Iraprimi Potest.

Mhil Obstat.

Imprimatur.

ALPHONSUS COAIST, 0. F. M., S. T. L.

Censor Deputatus.

TUBIBIUS DEAVEB, 0. F. M.

Minister Provincialis.

HENRICUS SCHUMACHER, S. T. D.

Censor Deputatus.

MICHAEL J. CUBLEY, D. D.

Arohiepiscopus Baltimorensis.

681206

TO THE FRANCISCAN FRIARS

OF THE PROVINCE OF ST. BARBARA

THIS WORK IN GRATEFUL REMEMBRANCE

IS DEDICATED BY ONE OF THEM

111

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

PREFACE vii

ABBREVIATIONS viii

BIBLIOGRAPHY ix-xiii

INTRODUCTORY 1

PART I

Historical Survey of Views Regarding the Interpretation,
Historicity and Authenticity ot Mt. 28, 19.

CHAPTER I. THE CONSERVATIVE SCHOOL.

1. THE DECREES OF THE POPES AND THE COUNCILS 5

2. THE VIEW OF THE SCHOLASTICS 17

3. THE MODERN TRADITIONAL SCHOOL 22

CHAPTER II. THE RADICAL SCHOOL.

1. THE NEGATIVE VIEW 26

2, THE POSITIVE VIEW 29

PART II
The Lord's Command to Baptise in Eusebius.

PRELIMINARY NOTE THE MANUSCRIPTS AND THE VER-
SIONS 37

CHAPTER I. STATE OF THE PROBLEM 41

CHAPTER II. THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE CONTRA MAR-
CELLUM AND THE LETTER TO THE CHURCH
AT CAESAREA.

1. THE CONTRA MARCELLUM 44

2. THE LETTER TO CAESAREA 61

CHAPTER III. THE OMISSIONS OF THE BAPTISMAL

COMMAND 71

CHAPTER IV. THE TRINITARIAN CITATIONS 82

CHAPTER V. THE INSERTION OF ' IN MY NAME' 87

CHAPTER VI. EUSEBIUS'S METHOD OF CITING SCRIP-
TURE 95

CONCLUSION 109

PKEFACE.

The present dissertation centers around the text of Mt. 28, 19.
It has been impossible to do justice to the numerous, interesting
problems, suggested by these parting words of the Savior as they
have been preserved to us by the evangelist Matthew. The first
part of the dissertation is an attempt at a full, tno perhaps not
complete, presentation of the difficulties, which this text has occa-
sioned to scholars of both the conservative and the radical school.
The second part is intended to be a detailed study of the reasons,
advanced by the positive group of the radical school, against the
authenticity of the text. The result of this study has been that
the authenticity of the text, inasf ar as the external evidence of the
manuscripts, the versions, and the citations in the works of the
Fathers is concerned, cannot be called into question.

It is a matter of regret to the writer, that he has been unable
to complete his work by a serious consideration of the difficulties,
presented by the negative school of Higher Criticism ; and also that
he could not give his attention to the perplexing problems sur-
rounding the interpretation of the text, in view of the seemingly
conflicting statements of the Book of Acts and the Letters of St.
Paul. It is his hope, however, that these questions will be treated
exhaustively at some later date, perhaps by a pen more competent
than his.

The writer wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to Dr. Henry
Schumacher, under whose direction and encouragement this work
was undertaken and completed. He is grateful for the careful
reading of the proofsheets by the Keverend ISTicholas Ehrenfried,
0. P. It is a pleasure for him, moreover, to express his gratitude
to his learned friend, Dr. Joseph Ehode, 0. F. M., to whose kind
and personal interest he owes whatever advantages he may enjoy
from a post-graduate course of studies. The sympathetic under-
standing of his former, lately deceased Vice-Provincial, the Very
Rev. Theodore Arentz, 0. F. M., and the large-hearted liberality
of his present Provincial Superior, the Very Rev. Turibius Deaver,
0. F. M., are graces for which the writer must rest eternally grate-
ful to the Father of lights, from whom every good and perfect
gift descends; for the considerate thoughtfulness of these men has
greatly lightened and brightened his otherwise arduous course of

studies ' BERNARD H. CUNEO, 0. F. M.

Mt. St. Sepulchre,
Washington, D. C v
April 3, 1923. yft

ABBREVIATIONS.

CSS Cursus Scripturae Sacrae (Hummelauer, Knabenbauer, Comely).

DAC Hasting's Dictionary of the Apostolic Church.

EB Encyclopedia Biblica (Cheyne and Black).

ERE 'Hasting's Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics.

HDB Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible.

HDB ( I ) Hasting's Dictionary of the Bible, Complete in One Volume.

JThSt Journal of Theological Studies.

MG Patrologiae graecae Cursus Completus (Migne).

ML Patrologiae latinae Cursus Completus (Migne).

SDB Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (Hackett-Abbot) .

TU Texte und Untersuchungen.

ZNTW 'Zeitschrift fur die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft.

Vlll

BIBLIOGRAPHY TO PART I, CHAPTER I.

Abbot, Ezra. Art. Baptism in Smith's Dictionary of the Bible (Hackett-

Abbot), New York, 1868.

Allen, Alexander. Christian Institutions, New York, 1897.
Alphonse of Liguori, St., C. SiS. R. Theologia Moralis, Curavit Mich.

Heilig, torn. 5, 6, Mechliniae, 1852.

Baronius, Caesare, ex Congregatione Oratorii. Annales Ecclesiastic!, Ve-
metiis, torn. 1 (1705), torn. 2 (1706).

Bartmann, Bernhard. Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, II (1921), Freiburg im
Breisgau.

Bede, St. Historia Ecclesiastica, ML 95.

Bellamy, J. Art. Bapteme, nn. I. Bapteme dans la sainte ^criture; VIII.
Bapteme dans Pfiglise latine depuis le VHIe Siecle avant et apres le
iConcile de Trente, in Diotionnaire de Theologie Catholique (A. Vacant
and E. Mangenot), Paris, 1905.

Bellarmine, Robert. Disputationum Tomus Tertius, Parisiis, 1613.

Benedioti XIV. Opera Oinnia in Tomos XVII Distributa, Tom. IX, Prati,
1843.

Bengel, John Albert. Gnomon of the New Testament. A New Transla-
tion by Charlton T. Lewis and Marion R. Vincent. Vol. 1,

Bernard, St. of Clairvaux. Epistola 403 (antea 340), ML 182.

Bingham, Joseph. Origines Ecclesiasticae. The Antiquities of the Chris-
tian Church, vol. 1, London, 1878.

Biniterim, Anton Joseph. Die vorzuglichsten Denkwurdigkeiten der Christ-
Katholischen Kirche, Erster Bd. Erster Th. Mainz, 1825.

Breen, A. E. A Harmonized Exposition of the Four Gospels, vol 4,
Rochester, New York, 1908.

Cateehismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini, Editio l a stereotypa, 1871.
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis. Art. The Eusebian Form of the Text.

Mt. 28, 19, in ZNTW 1901, pp. 275^288.
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis. Art. Three Early Modifications of the

Text of the Gospels: II. Mt. 28, 19, in The Hibbert Journal, 1902,

pp. 102-106.
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis. Ant. Baptism, in the Encyclopaedia

Britannica, Eleventh Edition, New York, 1910.
Corblet, Jules. Histoire Dogmatique, Liturgique et ArchSologique du

iSacrament de Bapteme, Tom. 1 (1)881), Tom. 1 (1882), Paris.
Cornelius a Lapide, S. J. Commentaria in Scripturam Sacram, in Mat-

thaeum, vol. 15 (1857) ; in Rom. and I Cor., vol. 18 (1861), Parisiis.
Comely, Rudolph, S. J. OSS, in I Cor., Parisiis, 1890.
Curci, Carlo M. II Nuovo Testamento, vol. 1, Firenze, 1879.

Denziger, Heinr. and Bannwart, Clem., S.J. Enchiridion Symbolorum,
etc. Editio Decima Quarta et Quinta, Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1922.

Diekamp, Franz. KLatholische Dogmatik, Dritter Band, Miinster i. W.,
1922.

Elbel, Benjamin, 0. F. M. Theologia Moralis, Edidit Irenaeus Bierbaum,

O. F. M., vol. 3, Paderbonae, 1895.
Esser, Gerhard. Art. Taufe, in Wetzer und Welte's Kirchenlexicon, vol.

11, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1899.
Estius, Guillelmus. In Quattuor Libros Sententiarum Commentaria, Tom.

3, Parisiis, 1653.

Fanning, William H. W. Art. Baptism, in Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 2,
New York, 1907.

Ferraris, Lucius, 0. F. M. Prompta Bibliotheca, Editio novissima, opera
. . . monachorum . . . Monte Cassini, Locupletante J. P. Migne, Tom.
1, Lutetiae, 1866.

Gotti, Vincentius Ludovicus, 0. P. Theologia Scholastico-Dogmatica Juxta
Mentem Divi Thomae Aquinatis, Tom. 3, Venetiis, 1763.

Grotius, Hugo. Operum Theologicoruin Tomus Secundus, etc. Basileae,
173-2.

Hefele, Carl Joseph von. Conciliengeschichte. Vol. 1 (1873), vol. 2
( (1875), vol. 3 (1877), vol. 4 (1879), Freiburg dm Breisgau.

Heinrich, J. B. Dogmatische Theologie, Fortgefiihrt durch Constantin
Gutberlet, Band 9, Miinster i. W., 1901.

Hugo de St. Victor. De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei, ML 176.

Hurter, H., S. J. Theologia Specialis, Pars Altera, Oennipotente, 1883.

Juenin, Gaspare, Oratorii Gallicani. Commentarius Historicus et Dog-
maticus, De Sacramentis in iGenere et in Specie, Pars Prima, Lugduni,
1696.

Kattenbusch, Ferdinand. Das Apostolische Symbol, Zweiter Band: Ver-

breitung und Bedeutung des Taufsymbols, Leipzig, 1900.
Kenrick, Franciscus Patricius. Theologia Dogmatica, vol. 3, Mechliniae,

1858.
Knabenbauer, Joseph, S. J. CSS, Evangelium sec. S. Matthaeum, Parisiis,

1893.
Knoll, a Bulsano, Albert, O. M. 'C. Institutions Theoreticae, seu Dogma-

tico-Polemicae, vol. 2, Augustae Taurinorum, 1868.

Lepin, M. Art. ^vangiles 'Canoniques, n. 45, La formule trdnitaire du

ibaptgme, in Dictionnaire Apolog6tique de la Foi Catholique (A.

D'Ales), Paris, 1911.
Liebermann, Leon. Br. Institutions Theologicae, Tom. 2, Moguntiae,

1859.
Lombardus, Petrus. Libri IV Senteiitiarum, Studio et cura PP. Collegii

S. Bonaventurae in Lucem editi, Tom. 2, iSecunda Editio, Ad Claras

Aquas, 1916.

MacEvilly, John. An Exposition of the Gospels, Dublin, New York, 1898.
Metzger, Max Josef. Zwei Karolingische Pontifikalien vom Oberrhein,

Freiburger Theologische iStudien, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1914.
Montalembert, The Monks of the West, vol. 2, Boston, 1872.

Pesch, Christianus, S.J. Praelectiones Dogmaticae, Tom. 6, De Sacra-
mentis, Friburgi Brisgoviae, 1914.

Plunimer, A. Art. Baptism, IV. The History of Christian Baptism, in
HDB, vol. 1, New York, 1902.

Plumptre, E. H. The Gospel according to St. Matthew (Ellicott's New
Testament Commentary), London, Paris, New York, 1884.

Pohle, Preuss. The Sacraments, a Dogmatic Treatise by the Kev. Joseph
Pohle. Authorized English Version, based on the Fifth German Edi-
tion, with some Abridgments and Additions by Arthur Preuss, St.
Louis, 1915.

Puniet, P. de. Art. Bapteme, in Diotionnaire D'ArchSologie Chr6tienne
et de Liturgie (Fernand Cabrol), 1907, Paris.

Rainy, Robert. The Ancient Catholic Church, New York, 1902.
Reiffenstuehl, F. Anacletus, 0. F.M. Theologia Moralis, Mutinae, 1737.

Scavini, Petrus. Theologia Moralis Universa ad Mentem S. Alphonsi,

Liber Tertius, Mediolani, 1869.
Scotus, Joannes Duns, Doctor 'Subtilis Ordinis Minorum. Opera Omnia,

Editio Nova, Tom. 23, Reportata Parisiensia, Parisiis, 1894.
Suarez, Fr., S.J. Theologiae Summa, a Francisco Noel ejusdem societatis

concinnatum, Pars Secunda, Accurante J. P. Migne, Lutetiae, 1858.

Sylvius, Franciscus. Commentarii in Tertiam Partem S. Thomae Aquina-
tis, Editio Quarta, Duaci, 1645.

Taquerey, Ad. Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae Specialis Ad Mentem S.

Thomae Hodiernis Moribus Accommodata, vol. 2, Editio 13, Neo-

Eboraci, etc., 19'11.
Thomas Aquinas, St. Doctor Angelicus, 0. P. Summa Theologica, Pars

Tertia, Romae, 1887.
Thomas Aquinas, St. Doctor Angelicus, 0. P. lExpositio in Sanctum J. C.

Evangelium sec. Matthaeum, JSTeapoli, 1858.
Tournely, Horatius. Cur sits Theologicus, Scholastico-Dogmaticus, Sive

Praelectionum Theologicorum Tomus Tertius. Coloniae Agrippinae,

1752.
Trollope, William. Analecta Theologica, A Critical, Philological and Exe-

getical 'Commentary on the New Testament, vol. 1, London, 1842.

Vacant, A. Art. Baptgme, in Vigoroux's Dictionnaire de la Bible, Paris,

1895.
Van der Velden, Pius, 0. F. M. Principia Theologica Moralia Theoretice

et Practice Exposita, Tomus Prior, Trudonopoli, 1854.
Van Noort, G. Traotatus de Sacramentis Ecclesiae, Fasciculus Prior,

Amsteldami, 1905.

Weiss. Art. Taufe, in Kraus's Realencyclopadie der Christlichen Alter-

thiimer, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1886.
Wilhelm-Scannell. A Manual of Catholic Theology, Based on Scheeben's

" Dogmatik," vol. 2, New York, etc., 1899.

BIBLIOGRAPHY TO PART I, CHAPTER II.

Bartlett, J. V. Art. Baptism (New Testament), in ERE, vol. 2, New
York, 1918.

Chase, F. H. Art. The Lord's Command to Baptize (St. Matthew xxviii,

19) in JThSt, 1905, pp. 481-517.
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis. Art. The Eusebian Form of the Text

Mt. 28, 19, in ZNTW, 1901, pp. 275-288.
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis. Art. Three Early Modifications of the

Text of the Gospels. II. Mt. 28, 19, in The Hibbert Journal, 1902,

pp. 102-106.
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis. Art. The Authorship of the Contra Mar-

cellum, in ZNTW. 1903, pp. 330-334.
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis. Art. The Authorship of the Contra Mar-

cellum, in ZNTW, 1905, pp. 250-270.

Feine, Paul. Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Leipzig, 1912.

Fisher, George Park. History of Christian Doctrine, New York, 1914.

Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius. Handcommentar zum Neuen Testament, I

Band, Freiburg i. B., 1802.
Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius. Lehrbuch der Neutestamentlichen Theologie,

zweite neu bearbeitete Auflage, herausgegeben von A. Jiilicher und

W. Bauer, Erster Band, Tubingen, 1911.

Jacquier, E. (Histoire des Livres du Nouveau Testament, torn. 2, Paris,
1905.

Lake, Kirsopp. Art. Baptism (Early Christian), in ERE, vol. 2, New

York, 1918.
Lebreton, Jules. Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinite", Paris, 1910.

Maclean, A. J. Art. Baptism, in Hasting's Dictionary of the Apostolic
Church, 1916. New York.

Martineau, James. Tlie Seat of Authority in Keligion, London, 1890.
MoGiffert, Arthur Cushman. A History of 'Christianity in the Apostolic
Age, New York, 1903.

Biehm, Eduard C. Aug. Art. Taufe in his Handworterbuch des Biblischen

Alerthums fiir gebildete Bibelleser, Bielefeld und Leipzig, 1884.
Eiggenbach, E. Art. Der Trinitarische Taufbefehl Matth. 28, 19, in Bei-

trage zur Forderung Christlicher Theologie, VII, 1903, Erstes Heft,

pp. 7-103.
Robinson, J. Armitage. Art. Baptism, in Encyclopaedia Biblica (Cheyne

and Black), New York, London, 1899.

Robinson, J. Armitage. Art. In My Name, in JThSt, 1905.
Rose, V., O. P. La Pense"e Chre"tienne, Textes et fitudes, iavangile selon

S. Matthieu, Traduction et Commenitaire, Paris, 1905.

Schenkel, Daniel. Art. Taufe in his Bibel-lexicon, Leipzig, 1875.

Weiss, Bernhard. Biblical Theology of the New Testament, Translated
from the Third Edition by Rev. David Eaton, Edinburgh, 1892.

Wellhausen, J. Das Evangelium Matthai tibersetzt und erklart, Berlin,
1904.

Wilkinson, J. R. Art. in The Hibbert Journal, 1903, pp. 571-576, in reply
to F. C. Conybeare's article in the same periodical of 1902, pp. 102-108.

Zahn, Theodore. Das Evangelium des Matthaus, Leipzig, 1910.

BIBLIOGRAPHY TO PART II.

A. The Fathers.

Athanasius. Apologia Contra Arianos, MG 25.
Athanasius. De .'Synodis, MG 26.

Eusebius of Caesarea. De Laudibus 'Constantini, MG 20.
" " " Epistola ad Constantinum, MG 20.

" " " Historia Ecclesiastica, MG 20.

" " " Epistola ad Caesarea, MG 20 (also 67).

" " " Praeparatio Evangelica, MG 21.

" " " Demonstratio Evangelica, MG 22.

" " " Eologae Propheticae, MG 22.

" " " iCommentaria in Psalmos, MG 23.

" " " 'Commentaria in Isaiam, MG 24.

Contra Marcellum, MG 24.

De Ecclesiastica Theologia, MG 24.

De Fide Adversus iSabellium, MG .24.

a ie i:

l( C( {C

tt ee ci

" " " De Resurrectione, MG 24.

" " " Syriac Theophany, editio Gressmann.

Hilary. De Synodis, ML 10.
Hilary. Fragmentum III, ML 10.

Sozomenus. Historia Ecclesiastica, MG 67.
Theodoretus. Historia Ecclesiastica, MG 82.

B. The Modern Authors.

Bethune-Baker, J. F. Note on the Contra Marcellum and The De Eccle-
siastica Theologia, in JThJSt, 1905, pp. 517-521.

Chase, F. H. Art. The Lord's Command to Baptize (St. Matthew xxviii,

19), in JThSt, 1905, pp. 481-517.
Conybeare, Frederick Cornwallis. The four articles mentioned under Part

I, Chapter II.

Xlll

Gressmann, Hugo. Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller, Eusebius'

Werke, III Bd. 2 Halfte, Die Theophanie, etc., Leipzig, 1904.
Gressmann, Hugo. Studien zu Eusebs Theophanie, in TU, ISTeue Folge,
VIII Bd. 3 Heft, Leipzig, 1003.

Harnack, Adolf. Die Chronologie der Altchristlichen Literatur bis Euse-
bius, II, 2, Leipzig, 1904.

Hefele, Carl Joseph von. iConciliengeschichte, 1, Freiburg im Breisgau,
1873.

Klostermann, Erich. Griechische 'Christliche Schriftsteller, Eusebius'
Werke, IV Bd. Contra Marcellum, Leipzig, 1906.

Lebreton, Jules. (Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinite", Paris, 1910.
Loeschcke, G. Art. Contra Marcellum, eine Schrift des Eusebius von Cae-

sarea, in ZNTW, 1906, pp. 69-76.
Loofs. Art. Marcellus von Ancyra, in Realencyclopadie fiir Protestantische

Theologie und Kirche 3 , 1903, Leipzig.

Resch, Alfred. Ausserkanonische Faralleltexte zu den Evangelien, in TU,

X Bd. I Theil, Leipzig, 1894.
Biggenbach, E. Article mentioned under Part I, Chapter II.

Schumacher, Heinrich. Die Selbstoffenbarung Jesu, Freiburg im Breis-
gau, 1912.

Wilkinson, J. R. Article mentioned under Part I, Chapter II.
Zahn, Theodore. Das Evangelium des Matthaus, Leipzig, 1910.

INTKODUCTOKY

Around the text of Mt. 28, 19: "Going, (therefore), make
disciples of all the nations, baptising them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ", there has been
spun a web of involved delicacy, which has tightened and nar-
rowed its meshes during that long and varied period, in which it
has struggled from the Fathers down to us. The greater part' of
this period is tempered by the toil and trouble of those scholars,
who may be called conservative in this point, since they never
questioned the authenticity, or the historicity of the text, but
strained every nerve to harmonise the interpretation of Mt. 28, 19
with the seemingly conflicting statements of the Book of Acts and
the Letters of St. Paul. The lesser, and more modern term of
the same period, is characterised, besides, by the efforts of a num-
erous minority to look upon the words of Matthew as authentic,
perhaps, but unhistorical, since they stand in open conflict with
the historical data of the Acts and of the Pauline Epistles; or
even as unauthentic, since they are regarded as a later interpola-
tion into the text of the First Gospel.

The germ of the difficulty is lodged in the fact that Mt. 28, 19
is the only text of the New Testament, which connects baptism
directly with the Trinity; whereas the Book of Acts mentions it
twice as administered lv TO> ovopari 'Irjo-ov Xpurrov (2, 38; 10, 48),
and twice <-ts TO ovopa TOV wpiov 'lyo-ov (8, 16; 19, 5) : and St.
Paul speaks of baptism e?.s Xpiordv (Gal. 3, 27), or els Xpurrov
Ir/o-ow (Eom. 6, 3).

Do not these texts of the Acts and of the Pauline Epistles give
preponderance to the opinion that the early Apostolic Church
baptised in the name of Jesus alone? It would seem so. Yet, how
could such a procedure be reconciled with the explicit command
of the Savior to baptise in the name of the Trinity, as it is re-
corded in the Gospel of Matthew? Do the words of Matthew con-
stitute a strict formula to be used in the administration of bap-
tism? Do they impose any, formula at all? If so, how can this
formula be squared with the rival formulas of the Acts and St.
Paul?

Or, should the words of the First Gospel be considered as the
reflex of the ecclesiastical practice, which was in vogue at the
time in which the First G-ospel was written? Might the words in
question have been interpolated into the text during the period,
in which the primitive method of baptising in the name of Christ
was being supplanted by the more developed method of baptising
in the name of the Trinity? Might they have been based on the
authority of Christ as a successful check on the outcries of a con-
servative minority against the newer, and radically different form
of baptism ?

These difficulties and hypotheses have engaged the attention of
both the conservatives and the radicals. It will be interesting and
profitable for us to follow the course of these two divergent streams
of thought in their various ramifications thruout the ages. We shall
first of all consider the traditional teaching in its various mani-
festations, as it is reflected in the decrees of the Eoman Pontiffs
and of the Councils, in the views of the scholastic school, and in
the views of the modern conservative school. Then we shall con-
sider the main line of argument of the modern radical, or anti-
traditional school.

PART I

HISTORICAL SURVEY OF VIEWS REGARDING THE INTERPRE-
TATION, HISTORICITY AND AUTHENTICITY

OF MT. 28, 19

CHAPTEE I

THE CONSEKVATIVE SCHOOL

1. Decrees of the Popes and the Councils.

The first papal pronouncement on this subject of which we have
any knowledge, dates from the third century. It was the outcome
of that spirited and bitter controversy concerning the validity of
baptism administered by heretics, which stirred the western Church
to its very pillars, and threatened to sunder the provinces of Africa
and Asia Minor from communion with Home. The main figure
in this controversy was St. Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (d. 258),
who in union with St.. Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappodocia
(d. 269) withstood the decision of St. Stephen I, Bishop of Eome
(d. 257).

Firmilian was the first to come into conflict with the Eoman See.
Between the years 230 and 235, he presided over a synod held at
Iconium in Phrygia, in which the bishops of Galatia, Cilicia and
the neighboring provinces participated. At this synod it was unani-
mously decided that baptism administered by heretics was invalid ;
and that consequently everyone who had 'been baptised in heresy,
had to be rebaptised on entering the church. 1 This decision of
the Asiatic bishops, and their corresponding practice, brought them
into disfavor with Stephen, who threatened to excommunicate
them, if they did not abandon their views. 2

St. Cyprian entered the controversy in the year 255. In that
year he convoked a Council at Carthage, at which 31 bishops ad-
judged baptism administered outside the pale of the Church to be
invalid. A second council of 71 bishops in the following year
(256) rendered a similar decision. St. Cyprian sent the conciliar
acts to Eome for approval ; but Stephen rejected the decision, and
maintained the validity of heretical baptism.

Unfortunately the reply of Pope Stephen to Cyprian has been
lost, as have also all documents or letters which he may have written
on the subject. We must therefore rely entirely on extracts of his
letters as they are preserved in the correspondence between Cyprian

1 Another synod seems to have been held at about the same time at Syn-
nada in Phrygia. Cf. Hefele Conciliengeschichte I, 108.
3 Hefele, I, 117.

and Firmilian, and on their interpretation of Stephen's words, for
any knowledge of the Pontiffs views on this matter.

In his letter (74th) to Firmilian, Cyprian quotes Stephen as
saying: "Si qui ergo a quacunque haeresi venient ad vos, nihil
innovetur nisi quod traditum est, ut manus illis imponatur in
poenitentiam, cum ipsi haeretici proprie alterutrum ad se venientes
non baptizent, sed communicent tantum ". 3

iShould we conclude from this text that Stephen was prepared
to admit the validity of every heretical baptism, whether the trini-
tarian form had been used or not? Prom the letters of Cyprian
and Firmilian the conclusion is forced upon us, that Stephen was
willing to admit the validity of every heretical baptism of his time ;
and that for two seemingly conflicting reasons: first, because
heretics baptised in the name of Jesus Christ; secondly, because
they baptised in the name of the Trinity.

In support of the first view we have the letter (73rd) of
Cyprian, 4 in which we find the following statements :

1. The defenders of heretical baptism uphold the validity of
baptism performed by the Marcionites, because they baptise in the
name of Jesus Christ.

2. Cyprian's opponents maintain the validity of a baptism per-
formed outside the Church in the name of Jesus Christ.

3. Heretics, in fact, baptise in the name of Christ.

The same view is expressed in the letter of Firmilian to Cyprian,
which says: "Sed in multum inquit (Stephanas), proficit nomen
Christi ad fidem et baptismi sanctificationem, ut quicumque et
ubicumque in nomine Christi baptizatus fuerit, consequatur gra-
tiam Christi". 5

On the other hand we have assertions, which seem to point to
the conclusion that Stephen approved the baptisms of heretics,
because they were performed in the name of the Trinity. For
instance, in his same 73rd letter, St. Cyprian concedes that the
Marcionites baptised in the name of the Trinity:, and he tries to
weaken this argument by saying, that under the expression " Father,
Son and Holy Ghost ", the Ma,rcionites understood something quite
different from the Church at large. 6 Cyprian's argumentation

3 Denziger-Bannwart Enchiridion Symb. et Def. Edit. 14 and 15, 1922,
n. 46.

4 ML, 3, 1112 sqq.

5 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 47.
"ML, 3, 1115 B.

leads us to think that his opponents, (hence Stephen), defended
the validity of the Marcionitic baptisms because they were per-
formed in the name of the Trinity. Yet, in the same letter, as
mentioned above, the Marcionites are claimed to baptise in the
name of Jesus Christ.

Then again, in the same 75th letter of Firmilian we read that a
certain woman in his vicinity, claiming to be a prophetess, had
administered baptism; but eventually she was discovered to be
possessed by an evil spirit. He then asks the question: "Will
Stephen and his followers claim that the baptisms administered
by her were valid, especially since they were performed in the name
of the Trinity?". 7

Are we to conclude from these passages that Stephen believed
that some heretics administered baptism in the name of Jesus,
and others in the name of the Trinity? Firmilian in his 75th
letter to Cyprian says : " <Stephanus in sua epistola dixit : haereti-
cos quoque ipsos in baptismo convenire"; and in the 74th letter
of Cyprian we read: "ipsi haeretici proprie alterutrum ad se
venientes non baptizant ". Consequently, since the heretics had no
proper baptism of their own (proprie non baptizant)', but agreed
with regard to baptism (in baptismo convenire), it seems to have
been Stephen's conviction that the heretics of his day used the
same formula in baptising as the Church did. Whether Stephen
was correct in this opinion is another question. 8

In view of what has been said, the following conclusions seem
justified :

1. Stephen believed that the baptismal formula used by the
heretics of the third century was the same as that used by the
Church.

2. He admits the validity of heretical baptism for two reasons :
first, because it was administered in the name of Jesus; secondly,
because it was administered in the name of the Trinity.

3. Consequently, either Stephen considered baptism in the name
of Jesus and baptism in the name of the Trinity synonymous ex-
pressions for baptism administered with the formula in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, or baptism
was administered with both formulas in the Koman Church of the
third century.

7 ML, 3, 1165 B.

8 For a lucid treatment of the entire discussion see liefele, 1. c., pp. 122-
133; also J. Corblet, Histoire du Sacrement De Bapteme, Paris, 1881, livre
VI, nil. IV, pp. 32R-348.

We know from Cyprian's 73rd letter (to Jubaianus) that some
persons of his time upheld the validity of baptism in the name of
Jesus alone. The passage is : " Denique ubi post resurrectionem a
Domino Apostoli ad gentes mittuntur, in nomine Patris et Filii et
Spiritus Sancti baptizare gentes jubentur. Quomodo, ergo, quidam
dicunt foris extra Ecclesiam, immo et contra Ecclesiam, modo in
nomine Jesu Christi ubicumque et quomodocumque gentilem bap-
tizatum remissionem peccatorum consequi posse,, quando ipse
Christus gentes baptizari jubet in plena et adunata Trinitate?".

Is this passage to be referred to Stephen or not? Biaronius (d.
1607) seems to, have been the first to affirm that it does. 10 Fanning
in the Catholic Encyclopedia also understands it in the same sense. 11
Eainy openly attributes this view to Stephen ; 12 so do also A.
Allen 13 and Conybeare. 14 Kattenbusch, however, in his monu-
mental work on the Symbolum, 15 says that it is not certain what
heretics Cyprian had in mind. P. de Puniet says that it is un-
certain that Stephen referred to a baptism performed solely under
the invocation of the name of Jesus. 16 The truth on this con-
troverted point would demand a study in itself, and it cannot be
entered upon further here. 17

The question of heretical baptism was taken up again by the
General Council of the western Church at Aries in Gaul in the
year 314. The decision of the Carthagenian councils under
Cyprian, was revoked; and it was ordained that heretics who had
been baptised in the Trinity, should not be rebaptised on returning
to the Catholic fold.

The wording of the eighth canon, however, which contains the
decision, is peculiar. It runs: "De Afris quod propria lege sua
utuntur ut rebaptizent, placuit, ut si ad Ecclesiam aliquis de
haeresi venerit, interrogent eum symbolum, et si perviderint eum
in Patre et Filio et Spiritu Saricto esse baptizatum, manus ei

9 ML, 3, 1120 B-C.

10 Ann. Eccles., torn. 1, an. Ch. 34, n. 248.

11 Art. Baptism, p. 263, col. 2.

The Ancient Catholic Church, p. 259 sq.

13 Christian Institutions, p. 403 sq.

14 ZNTW, 1901, The Eusebian Form of the Text, Mt. 28, 19, p. 286, n. 33.
15 Apostl. Symbol., vol. 2, p. 375, note 35.

10 Diet. d'Arch. et Litur., art. Bapteme, III. L'Acte Baptismal et sa
Formule, etc., col. 338.

17 A rich store of literature will be found in the work of J. Corblet, His-
toire du Sacrement de Bapteme, torn. 1, p. 348, note 1.

tantuxn imponatur ut accipiat Spiritum Sanctum. Quodsi interro-
gatus, non respondent hanc Trinitatem, laptizetur ", 18

It would almost seem from the foregoing words, that by the
expression in Patre et Filio et Spiritu Sancto laptizatum, the
council of Aries understood baptism administered after a profes-
sion of faith in the Trinity. Nothing is directly said in the canon
about the baptismal formula. The bishops of Africa are merely
instructed to ask the converted heretics concerning the symbolum,
and to rebaptise them if they do not answer the Trinity (if they
make no mention of the Trinity in their symbolum?).

The following synods and councils which treat of heretical bap-
tism, either emphasize the eighth canon of the council of Aries, or
merely apply its principles to individual classes of heretics. Thus
canon 8 of the First General Council at Nicaea (325) ordains that
the Novatians should not be rebaptised, while canon 19 says that
the Paulianists (followers of Paul of Samosata) should be re-
baptised. 10 The synod of Carthage, held under G-ratus between
the years 345 and 348, forbids the rebaptism of the Donatists. 20
The synod of Laodicea in Phrygia, held between 348 and 381, de-
cides in its seventh canon that the Novatians, (and Photinians), 21
and Quartodecimans should not be rebaptised; whereas the eighth
canon commands the Phrygians (Montanists) to be rebaptised. 22

In two letters of Pope Innocent I, we are told the explicit
reason why some heretics were admitted without rebaptism, and
others not. In his second letter, Etsi tibi, written to Victricius,
Bishop of Kouen (Feb. 15, 404), he repeats the decision of the
eighth canon of Nicaea, that the Novatians (whom he calls Mon-
tenses) 23 should not be rebaptised. He then adds the reason:
"quia quamvis ad haereticis, tamen in Cliristi nomine sunt bap-
tizati".**

The same Pope, however, in his 17th epistle, Magna me gratu-
latio, addressed to Eufus and other bishops of Macedonia (Dec.
13, 414), in explaining why the Council of Nicaea discriminated
between the Novatians and the Paulianists, has the following to

18 I>enziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 53.

10 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., nn. 55, 56.

20 Hefele, 1. c., I, 633.

21 See the discussion of the authenticity of this word in Hefele, 1. c.,
I, 753 sq.

22 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 88.

23 Cf. Hefele, 1. c., II, 46.

24 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 94.

say : " Quod idcirco distinctum esse ipsis duabus haeresibus, ratio
manifesta declarat, quia Paulinanistae in nomine Patris et Filii
et Spiritus Sancti minime laptizent, et JSTovatiani iisdem nominibus
tremendis venerandisque baptizant, nee apud istos de imitate po-
testatis divinae, hoc est Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti quaestio
aliquando commota est". 25

Here we find the same peculiarity as we did above with Stephen
I. Stephen admitted the validity of all heretical baptisms of his
time, because they were performed in the name of Jesus Christ,
and again, because they were performed in the name of the Trinity.
Innocent proclaims the baptisms of the ISTovatians valid, because
they baptised in the name of Christ (ep. 2), and again, because
they baptised in the name of the Trinity (ep. 17). Did Innocent
identify the two expressions, or did he consider both formulas
valid, or were the expressions in question not intended to refer
to any formula at all?

The question of heretical baptism is again considered by the
second council of Aries (443 or 452). The injunction is here
repeated to rebaptise the Photinians and the Paulianists according
to the precepts of the Fathers (canon 16), but to receive the
Bonosians without baptism, because like the Arians, they baptised
in the Trinity (canon 17 ). 26

The same question is treated more fully in the canon, which at
present is enumerated as the seventh in the canons of the second
General Council held at Constantinople (381), but which most
probably was taken from a letter, addressed by the Church of
Constantinople to Bishop Martyrius of Antioch in the middle of
the fifth century (ca. 460 ). 27 This canon, or rather letter, men-
tions that the Arians, Macedonians, Sabbatines (followers of Sab-
batius), Novatians, Quarto decimans and Apollinarists are not
rebaptised; but the Eunomians, the Montanists (who are called
Phrygians), the Sabellians and all other heretics, especially such
as hail from Galatia are received as heathens, they are baptised
only after a long period of instruction.

About a hundred years later (ca. 560), we find the first ex-
plicit statement concerning heretics who baptise in the name of
Jesus alone. It is contained in the letter, Admonemus ut, written
by Pope Pelagius I to G-audentius, Bishop of Yolterra in Italy.

25 Ibidem, n. 97.
88 Hefele, 1. c., II, 300.

27 Ibidem, II, 27.

The Pope declares such baptisms invalid, and demands that per-
sons baptised with such a formula should be rebaptised according
to the words of Mt. 28, 19. 28

Almost as clear a pronouncement is had in the ep. 67, libri II,
Quia charitati, written by Pope Gregory I to Quiricus and the
bishops of Ireland (June 22, 601). Gregory here affirms that he
has learned from the ancient teaching of the Fathers, that whoso-
ever had been baptised in the Trinity while in heresy, should not
be rebaptised; but whosoever had not been baptised in the Trinity,
should be baptised, " quia baptisma non fuit, quod in errore positi,
in sanctae Trinitatis nomine minime perceperunt ". 20

The statement of Conybeare that in this .seventh century the popes of
Rome excommunicated the entire Celtic Church for their adhesion to the
old method of baptising in the name of Jesus alone, 30 is not in accordance
with historical truth. At the time to which Conybeare refers, the Anglo-
Saxons had succeeded in overrunning England, and subjugating the Chris-
tian Britons who formerly possessed the land. The feeling of hatred in
the British hearts, against the invaders, was so deep, that they would
not even attempt to evangelise the heathen conquerors, in order that they
might not become partakers thru their help, of eternal happiness in the
world to come.

When Augustine landed on the isle of Thanet in the year 557 in answer
to the command of Gregory the Great, he found this feeling of the native
Britons an obstacle to his mission. He found, too, that the Christian
clergy not only of England, but also of Ireland and Scotland, differed in
very many respects in their liturgy from the mother -Church at Eome.

It was Augustine's aim to persuade the Britons to aid him in evangel-
ising the Anglo-Saxons, and also to conform to Rome in the carrying-out
of itheir liturgy. Accordingly he assembled the bishops and the chief
priests of England, and proposed that they make the following concessions.
I shall give the proposals in the words of Ven. Bede, the oldest historian
on this subject:

" Dicebat autem eis : Quia in muLtis quidem nostrae consuetudini, immo
universalis Ecclesiae contraria geritis: et tamen, si in tribus his mihi
obtemperare vultis, ut Pascha suo tempore celebretis; ut ministerium bap-
tizandi, quo Deo renascimur, juxta morem sanctae romanae et apostolicae
Ecclesiae compleaitis; ut genti Anglorum una nobiscum verbum Domini
praedicetis : ceterum quae agitis, quamvis moribus nostris contraria, aequa-
nimiter cuncta tolerabimus. At illi nil horum se facturos, neque ilium
pro archiepiscopo habituros esse respondebant." KL

38 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 229-
20 Ibidem, n. 249.

30 The Hibberit Journal, 1902, p. 107; also art. Baptism, in the Encyclo-
pedia Britannica.

31 Historia Ecclesiastica, ML, 95, 83, cap. 2.

.12

The principal difference between the Celtic Church and the Church of
Rome, consisted in the different computation of the paschal time; at least
this divergence of observance gave rise to the greatest inconvenience, and
even bitterness, between the two parties, until in the year 664 the matter
was settled in favor of the Roman observance by the Northumbrian king,
Oswiu." 3

The difference regarding baptism was not as important as Conybeare
would have us believe. According to the words of Bede, quoted above,
Augustine asked the Britons to complete baptism according to the custom
of the Roman and Apostolic Church ( " ut ministerium baptizandi com-
pleatis") ; at least the ordinary meaning of complere is to complete, altho
it may also mean to perform.

At any rate, Ave have no testimony to the effect that the Celts baptised
in the name of Jesus alone. Montalembert ss understands the words of
Bede as referring to the words after baptism, and probably to the sacra-
ment of 'Confirmation. M. Varin, in his second treatise, on the causes of
the differences between the Celtic Church and the Church of Rome (the
summary of which is given in Montalembert's " The Monk of the West " S4 ) ,
understands the expression of Bede to refer to the ceremonies supple-
mentary to baptism, ceremonies, which the islanders would not recognise,
because their first apostles who had come from Rome, had told them noth-
ing about them. From the words of Bede it is more natural to conclude
that the difference consisted in these supplementary ceremonies than in the
formula itself.

Moreover, the popes of Rome never excommunicated the Celtic Church
for this difference of observance. ISTo such excommunication is mentioned
by Montalembert in the " Monies of the West ", Lingard in the " Antiqui-
ties of the Anglo-Saxon Church ", Rohrbacher in his " Histoire Universelle
de L'Eglise Catholique ", Thurstoii in his . article " Anglo-tSaxon Church ",
in the " Catholic Encyclopedia ", Zimmermann in his article " England ",
in Wetzer and Welte's " Kirchenlexicon ".

Montalembert says expressly : " Rome never treated as schismatics, or
heretics, those Celtic dissidents, the most illustrious of whom, Columbanus
of Luxeuil and Aiden of Landisfarne, have always had a place in her
martyrology. iShe never proceeded otherwise than by Avay of counsel and
moderation, without insisting on violent measures, and patiently awaiting
the returning calm of excited spirits, giving to all an example of prudence,
moderation and charity ". 35

In the following century we have an interesting case which St.
Boniface of Germany proposed to Pope Zachary I for solution.
There was an ignorant priest in Bavaria, he writes, who corrupted
the formula and baptised: "in nomine patria et filia et spiritus
sancti". Boniface ordered these baptisms to be repeated; but

32 Ibidem, cap. 25, col. 158 sqq.

3a The Monks of the West, vol. 2, p. 179, note 94, edition of 1872, Boston.

34 Appendix II, p. 743.

30 L. c., 2, p. 320 sq.

since this measure was opposed by two of his priests, Virgilius
(later Bishop of Salzburg) and Sidonius (later Bishop of Passau),
he asked Pope Zachary to decide the case. The Pope answered
(July 1, 746) that the baptisms were valid, if the priest changed
the formula merely thru ignorance, and not thru any heretical
intention. 36

Boniface wrote again informing the Pope of the decision reached
by the General Prankish Synod of 747, that if the name of one
person was omitted from the formula, the baptisms were invalid.
The Pope approved the decision. 37 His letter, Sacris liminibus,
written May 1, 748, is a clear statement of his position : <e Qui-
cunque sine invocatione Trinitatis lotus fuisset, sacramentum re-
generationis non haberet . . . ; perfectus non est, nisi fuerit in
nomine Patris, et Filii, and Spiritus Sancti baptizatus ", 38

In spite of this clear statement of Pope Zachary in the year 748,
and of Pope Gregory the Great in 601, and of Pelagius I in 560,
we are confronted by another very doubtful utterance in the
Responsa of Nicholas I to the Consulta Bulgarorum (Nov. 866).
From the 14th to the 16th chapter of Nicholas's answer, we are
told that there was a certain Greek among the Bulgarians who
pretended to be a priest, and in this way had been able to baptise
a great number of people. When the people found out that he was
an impostor, they maltreated him and drove him away. Nicholas
condemns this action as cruel and punishable; but he informs the
Bulgarians that the baptisms were valid, if they were performed
in the Trinity. 39

In the 104th chapter of the same document, however, we find a
conflicting statement. It reads: "A quodam Judaeo, nescitis
utrum christiano an pagano, multos in patria vestra baptizatos
asseritis, et quid de his agendum, consulitis. Hi profecto si in
nomine Sanctae Trinitatis, vel tantum in nomine Christi sicut in
Actibus Apostolorum legimus, baptizati sunt (unum quippe
idemque est, ut Sanctus exposuit Ambrosius), constat eos non esse
denuo baptizandos ". 40

Here again the same question arises as before with Stephen I
and Innocent I. Did Nicholas consider the expressions in nomine

30 Hefele, 1. c., 3, 555.

37 Ibidem, 566.

88 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 297.

3 Hefele, 1. c., 4, 348.

40 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 335.

14.

Sanctae Trinitatis, and in nomine Christi as synonymous expres-
sions for a baptism administered with the formula in nomine
Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, or did he consider the expressions
as two distinct formulas, "both of which could be used for the valid
administration of baptism? The latter position is attributed to
him by the majority of the scholastics; as, for instance, Estius, 41
Suarez, 42 Sylvius, 43 Tournely, 44 Gotti, 45 Juenin, 46 and St.
Alphonse ; 47 also by the modern conservatives Liebermann, 48
Heinrich, 49 Pohle-Preuss, 50 and Plummer. 61 The first view was
championed by St. Thomas, 52 and lately again by C. Pesch, 53 tho
with different explanations.

Alexander III (d. 1181) in a letter to Pontius says that if a
person baptised a child with the formula in nomine Patris et Filii
fit Spiritus Sancti, Amen, omitting the words ego laptizo te, the
baptism were invalid. 54

The first clear official enunciation of the baptismal formula
used in the Catholic Church is set down in the first chapter, "De
Fide Catholica", of the Twelfth General Council, the Fourth of
Lateran (1215). The wording is: " Sacr amentum vero baptismi
(quod ad Dei invocationem et individuae Trinitatis, videlicet, Patris
et Filii et Spiritus Sancti consecratur in aqua) tarn parvulis quam
adultis in forma Ecclesiae a quocumque rite collatum proficit ad
salutem ". 55 It will be observed, however, that nothing is stated
about the validity, or invalidity, of other formulas in past ages.

Sixty-nine years later the synod of Nemours (1284), after em-
phasizing that the trinitarian formula should be used in baptism,
adds the remarkable statement : <c Idem dicimus, scilicet, inf antem
baptizatum esse, si baptizans dicit: Baptizo te in nomine Christi.

41 Comm. in Lib. IV Sent. dist. 3, par. 5.

^Summa Theol., Disp. 21, Sect. 3, 4, col. 875, Dico 4.

43 Comm. in Tert. Part. S. Th. Aq., q. 66, a. 6.

44 De Sac. Bapt., art. 4, obj. 2.

45 Theol. iSchol.-Dogm. tr. 5, De Bapt. dub. 7, part. 3, n. 15.

40 Comm. Hist, et Dogm. De San. Diss. 2, De Bapt. c. 3, a. 3, Concl. 2.

* Theol. Moral., lib. 6, tr. 2, De Bapt. c. 1. dub. 3.

d8 Instit. Theol., p. 420, 4.

40 Dogm. Theol., p. 286.

co The Sacraments, 1, 224.

51 Art. Baptism in HDB, TV, The History of Christian Baptism.

03 Sranma 3, q. 66, a. 6, ad tertium.

ra Prael. Dogm., 6, n. 389.

M Denziger-Bamrwart, 1. c., n. 398.

56 Ibidem, 1. c., n. 430.

Quod tamen non est laicis exprimendum, ne a forma praedicta
statuta per Ecclesmm recedatur ".

The fifteenth General Council at Vienne (1311-1312) repeated
the words of the Fourth Lateran Council. It says: "Ad hoc
baptisma unicum baptizatos omnes in Christos regenerans est,
sicut unus Deus, ac fides unica, ab omnibus fideliter confitendum,
quod celebratum in aqua in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus
Sancti, credimus esse tam adultis quam parvulis communiter per-
fectum remedium ad salutem". 57

That this statement of the Council of Vienne, and likewise that
of the Fourth Lateran Council, refers to the actual practice of
the Church at the time in which those councils were held, and does
not regard the baptisms administered in the past, seems clear from
the discussions, which continued in the theological schools, as to
whether the Apostles made use of the trinitarian, or the christo-
logical formula in baptism.

This point is clearly illustrated in the discourse entitled: De
Communione sub utraque specie, addressed in the year 1433 to
the Council of Basle by the Dominican, John of Eagusa. He says :
"Dominus Jesus Christus ascendens in coelum praecepit apostolis
dicens, Matthaei ultimo: Ite docete omnes gentes, baptizantes eos
in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti, in quibus verbis dedit
eis et limitavit formam baptism! et in persona eorum toti ecclesiae.
Et tamen, non post longum tempus, ipsi apostoli et ecclesia dimit-
tendo dictam formulam in nomine Patris etc., traditam a Domino,
baptizabant tantum in nomine Domini Jesus Christi. ... Si enim
immutaverunt apostoli formam baptismi, quae dat essentiam sac-
ramento, taliter ut si quis nunc in ilia forma, qua ipsi apostoli,
baptizaret, non esset baptismus, quanto magis potest ecclesia, mutare
vel tollere unam speciem etc ", 58

Consequently, altho John of Kagusa admits that to perform bap-
tism in the name of Jesus alone in his day were invalid, still, he
says, it was valid in the early days of the Church.

The question of the formula was once more treated by Eugene IV
in his Decretum pro Armenis (1439). He states that the bap-

60 Mansi, Concilia 24, col. 523.

57 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 482. Mansi, however, 25, col. 411, has the
text in the more intelligible form: "Baptisma unicum baptizatos omnes
in Christo regenerans, sicut unus Deus ac fides unica, ab omnibus confi-
tendwn p.st ".

68 Mansi Concilia, 29, col. 858 and 863.

tismal formula is: Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris et Filii et
Spiritus sancti. However, he continues,, he does not wish to deny
that two other formulas are also valid, soil : Baptizatur talis servus
Christi in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti; and : Baptiza-
tur manibus meis talis in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus
Sancti. 59

The Council of Trent (1545-1563) settled the question of here-
tical baptism, by anathematising anyone who maintained the in-
validity of a baptism, performed in the name of the Father and.
of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, with the intention of doing
what the Church does. 60

Alexander VIII in 1690 condemned the opinion of those per-
sons who held that baptism had in past ages been validly conferred
in the form in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, without
mentioning: Ego te baptizo. Gi

The result of this survey may be summarised thus: We have
no decision of a General Council, or any papal document addressed
to the entire Church, or in fact, any document at all of a pope,
synod, or council, which states that baptism performed in the name
of Jesus alone, was invalid in every age of the Church's history.
We know for certain that such baptisms were considered invalid in
the sixth century by Pelagius I, in the seventh by Gregory I, in
the eighth by Zachary I, and probably in the fifth by Innocent I.
In the third century the position of Stephen I on the question is
very doubtful, as is also that of Mcholas I in the ninth century.

The Lateran Council of the 13th century, that of Vienne in the
14th, and of Trent in the 16th put down as the requirements for
a valid baptism, the ablution by ivater and the invocation of the
Trinity. This invocation is not further determined by these coun-
cils. It is determined only in the practical instruction of Eugene
IV to the Armenians, in the form: I baptise thee in the name of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost.

That the General Councils did not wish to condemn all baptisms
of the past, which had not been performed with the formula I bap-
tise thee in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost, seems clear from the Cathechismus Romanus, edited in the
year 1566 for the pastors of the Catholic Church by express orders
of the Council of Trent. This official catechism of the Council of

G0 Denziger-Bannwart, 1. c., n. 696.

00 Ibidem, n. 860.

01 Ibidem, n. 1317.

Trent takes up the question of the baptisms administered by the
Apostles in the first century. It says that if the Apostles baptised
merely in the name of Jesus, they did it by the inspiration of the
Holy Ghost (Spiritus Sancti afflatu), and in this christological
formula everything was contained which had been ordained by
Christ: "qui enim Jesum Christum dicit, simul etiam Patris
personam, a quo unctus, et Spiritum Sanctum quo unctus est,
significat". In the following words, however, the compilers of the
Catechism seem to incline toward the opinion that the Apostles
made use of the trine form, and that the expressions of Acts and
St. Paul are to be understood of Christian baptism in contrast to
the Joannine baptism. 62

Then again, we have the testimony of Benedict XIV (d. 1758).
In his treatise De Festo Ascensionis, 63 he mentions the two opinions
on this vexed problem, without venturing a decision of his own;
altho he adds that the majority of the theologians hold that the
Apostles always made use of the trine form.

2. The View of the Scholastics.

The same scriptural texts which caused difficulty to the popes
and the councils from the third century down to the eighteenth,
agitated the minds of the scholastic theologians from the twelfth
century onward. The two greatest exponents of theology in the
first half of the twelfth century, were Hugo de St. Victor and
Peter Lombard. Hugo de St. Victor wrote his work De Sacra-
mentis about the year 1134, some eleven or twelve years before
Peter Lombard wrote his famous Book of Sentences (ca. 114.5-
1151).

In the work De Sacramentis (lib. 2, pars 2, cap. I), 64 Hugo
states as his conviction that baptism is valid (plenum] even if it
be administered in the name of one person of the Trinity, pro-
vided the minister believed in the entire Trinity; whereas if the
minister did not believe in the Trinity, the baptism performed by
him was imperfect (imperfectum} , even tho it had been adminis-
tered with the trine invocation.

He bases this opinion on the meaning which he attaches to the

02 Oatechismus ex Decreto Concilii Tridentini. Editio l a stereotypa,
1871, p. 150.

03 Benedict XIV, Opera Omnia in Tomos XVII Distributa, Prati, 1843,
Tom. IX, p. 179, n. 24.

01 ML, 1 76, 44,3 sqq ; esp. 446, A, and 447, C, D.

expression to ~be baptised in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Ghost, and also on an obscure passage in the works
of St. Ambrose. The expression in Mt. 28, 19 he asserts at length,
means to be baptised into the faith, or profession of faith, in the
Trinity. Consequently, since this profession of faith in the Trinity,
according to him, is the essential feature, it matters little what
formula is used in the administration of baptism. He even goes
so far as to assert that he would not dare pronounce on the validity
of a baptism, which had been performed by a minister who believed
in the Trinity, but who did not pronounce the words, either be-
cause he could not speak, or because he forgot the words on account
of some imminent danger or other reason.

That this is Hugo's final opinion is evident from the Praefatiuncula,
which he prefixed to his work De Sacramentis Christianae Fidei. In that
Praefatiuncula he admonishes the reader that he wrote this treatise owing
to the insistent demands of his friends, and that he made use of his former
dictations. If, however, the reader found elsewhere in his works anything
not agreeing with his opinions here, he should change them according to
this book. "Lectorem admonitum esse volo, ut sicubi ea extra operis
hujus seriem aliud aut aliter aliquid habentia invenerit, hanc diversitatis
causam esse sciat, et si quid forte in eis emendandum fuerit, ad hujus
operis formam componat."

The passage of St. Ambrose, by which he supports this opinion,
is found in lib. 1, De Spiritu Sancto cap. 3. 65 Ambrose has just
been treating of the disciples at Ephesus, who had been baptised
with the baptism of John, and were rebaptised by Paul. He con-
tinues : " Baptizati sunt itaque in nomine Jesu Christi ; nee itera-
tum est in his baptisma, sed novation; unum enim baptisma (Eph.
4, 5). Ubi autem non est plenum baptismatis sacramentum, nee
principium vel species aliqua baptismatis aestimatur. Si unum
neges, totum subrues. Et quemadmodum si unum in sermone
comprehendas, aut Patrem aut Filium aut Spiritum sanctum, fide
autem nee Patrem nee Filium nee Spiritum sanctum abneges,
plenum est fidei sacramentum; ita etiam quamvis et Patrem et
Pilium et Spiritum dicas, et aut Patris aut Filii aut Spiritus sancti
minuas potestatem, vacuum est oimie mysterium. ISTunc considere-
mus utrum quemadmodum in Christi nomine plenum esse legimus
baptismatis sacramentum, ita etiam sancto tantum Spiritu nuncu-
pate, nihil clesit ad mysterii pleiiitudinem. Eationem sequaniur;
quia qui unum dixerit, Trinitatem signavit. Si Christum dicas,

" r O,IL, HI. 713, n. 42 sq.

et Deum Patrem, a quo unctus est Filius, et Spiritum sanctum,
quo unctus est, designasti. . . Et si Patrem dicas, et Filium ejus
et Spiritum oris ejus pariter indicasti; si tamen id etiam corde
comprehendas. Et si Spiritum dicas, et Deum Patrem a quo pro-
cedit Spiritus: et Filium,, quia Filii quoque est Spiritus, nuncu-
pasti ".

It was on the authority of this passage that Peter Lombard, also,
asserted that baptism in the name of Christ alone was valid, and
probably also in the name of the Father alone, or of the Holy
Ghost alone, provided the minister believed in the Blessed Trinity. 66
He confirms this view, moreover, by the answer of Pope Nicholas I>
A d Consulta Bulgarorum, which has been mentioned above.

This opinion of Hugo and Peter Lombard seems to have gained
influence in the twelfth century. We find it carried out to the
extreme in one of the letters of the contemporary saint, scholar,
and statesman, Bernard of Clairvaux. St. Bernard (d. 1153) had
been asked by Henry the Archdeacon his opinion concerning the
baptism of a boy, who had been extracted from his mother's womb,
and had been baptised by a lay person with the formula : Baptizo
te in nomine Dei et sanctae crucis. He answers as follows "sine
praejudicio tamen sanius sapientis":

" Ego vere hunc baptizatum puto : nee sonum vocis veritati
fidei et pietati intentionis praejudicare potuisse. . . . Feque enim,
cum juxta communem Ecclesiae constitutionem baptizantes dici-
mus: in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus sancti, aliud intelli-
gendum est quam in conf essione Trinitatis. Porro autem confessio
sanctae crucis nonnisi crucifixi confessio est. Legimus sane in
Actibus Apostolorum non modo: in nomine Patris et Filii et
Spiritus saiicti, verum et in nomine Domini Jesu Christi aliquos
baptizatos ", 67

iSome authors have questioned the authenticity of this letter. Thus
among others Estius (In IV Lib. Sent. Comm. dist. 3, par. 5) and Sylvius
(Comm. in Tert. Part. S. Th. Aq., q. 66, art. 6) ; but these authors adduce
no reason in favor of their assertion excepting the strangeness of the
doctrine contained in the letter. But that doctrine from the lips of St.
Bernard is not strange at all, when we stop to think that Bernard was
the scholar and friend of Hugo de St. Victor (cf. Mabillion, Sancti Ber-
nardi Opera Omnia, 1667, Tom. 1, p. V, of the Brevis Chronologia in Vitam,
etc., under the year MCXLII, where he calls Hugo: "S. Bernardi amicus
et cultor praecipuus, alter sui seculi Augustinus " ) . J. Corblet (Histoire

Lib. IV Sent., dist. 3, cap. 3', n. 25, and cap. 4, n. 26.
07 ML, 182, 614, C, Epistola 403 (antea 340).
3 b

Dn 'Sacrement De Baptenie, 1, 282) also expresses his doubts about the
authenticity, on account of the doctrine, and on account of the small num-
ber of documents in which the letter appears. Horstius says that he
would not easily deny its authenticity (ML, 182, 614 C, note 1054) . Mabil-
lion (1. c.) tells us that it is found in the edition of Lyons, 1520, in other
later editions, and in the manuscript Sarbondcus. It is to be regretted
that we have no critical edition of St. Bernard's works; but we must
bear in mind that the doctrine expressed in the letter, far from, militating
against the authenticity, is a strong argument in its favor. It is just
what we should expect to hear from one of Hugo's disciples, since it is
the logical outcome of his principles.

We find the same opinion in its more mitigated form, viz: that
baptism in the name of Christ. was always valid, and probably also
baptism in the name of the Father alone or of the Holy G-host
alone, maintained as late as the 15th and the 16th centuries by
Adrianus (d. 1458), Cajetan (d. 1534), and Toletus (d. 1596). 6S

The vast majority of the scholastics, however, rejected this
opinion, and maintained that the threefold invocation was abso-
lutely necessary. Concerning the expressions in the Acts and St.
Paul, there were two opinions : the first, that the Apostles baptised
in the name of Jesus alone in virtue of a special dispensation;
the second, that the Apostles always made use of the trine form,
and that the conflicting statements of the Acts and St. Paul are
to be interpreted as meaning Christian baptism in contrast to the
Joannine baptism.

The first view was the more prevalent one in the years preceding
the Council of Trent. 69 It was held among others by Alexander
of Hales, Albertus Magnus, St. Bonaventure, St. Thomas, Duns
Scotus, and by the thomistic and scotistic schools generally. 70

The contrary opinion, however, gained ground after the Council
of Trent. 69 Bellarmine (d. 1621) calls the view that baptism was
valid if performed with the invocation of one of the divine names,
" incommoda opinio multorum catholicorum " . He rejects the
opinion that the Apostles made use of a dispensation, because such
a dispensation is not mentioned in the Scriptures, or in any council,
or in the works of any of the Fathers. 71

08 Cf. Cornelius a Lapide in Eom. 6, 3, vol. 18.
00 Cf. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, 1, 221 sq.

70 Cf. Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, torn. 1, s. v. Bapt. art. 3, n. 32.
For St. Thomas see the Summa 3, q. 66, art. 6 ad primum; also: Fjxposit.
in Sanct. J. C. Evang. sec. Mt. ad loc. For Scotus see: Lib. IV Sent.,
dist. 3, q. 2; also Reportata Parisiensia, lib. 4, dist. 3, q. 2, n. 8.

71 De Sacram. Bapt., lib. 1, cap. 3.

Similarly Vasquez (d. 1604), 72 Estius (d. 1613), 73 Suarez (d.
1617), 74 Coninck (d. 1633), 72 Cornelius a Lapide (d. 1637), 75
Grotius (d. 1646), Te Sylvius (d. 1649), 77 Aversa (d. 1657),"
Tournely (d. 1729), 78 Elbel (d. 1756), 70 Ferraris (d. 1760), 72
Juenin (d. ?), 80 and others reject the apostolic dispensation. It
is rather surprising, therefore, to find. Anaclete Keiffenstuehl in
the late 17th century (d. 1703), affirming that the apostolic dis-
pensation was the more common opinion of theologians with few
exceptions. 81 Gotti (d. 1742) says that both are probable. 82 St.
Alphonse Ligouri (d. 1787) affirms that the second opinion was
more common and more probable. 83

The explanations which the supporters of the second view give
to the texts of the Acts are various. The prevalent idea is that
when the Book of Acts mentions baptism in the name of Jesus, it
does not wish to exclude the Father and the Holy Ghost, but
wishes merely to state that certain persons were baptised with the
baptism instituted by Christ, in order to distinguish that baptism
from the baptism of John. 84 Hence the expressions may mean
that baptism was administered after a profession of faith in
Christ, 85 or in the sacrament of baptism, 86 or that it was admin-
istered thru the merits of Christ, 87 or on the authority of Christ. 88

These scholastics, however, do not adopt any one explanation.
They all adduce two, or three, or four explanations, and say that
any may be accepted. Some even advance the theory that the

72 See Ferraris, Prompta Bibliotheca, torn. 1 s. v. Bapt. art. 3, nn. 30-34,

73 In Lib. IV sent. Comm. dist. 3, par. 2.
74 Summa Theol. disp. 21, sect. 3, 4, col. 874 sq.
76 In Rom. 6, 3; I Cor. 1, 13, vol. 18.
76 0perum Theol., torn. 2, ad loc.

"Comm. in Tert. Part. S. Th. Aq., q. 66, art. 6.

78 De Sacram. Bapt., art. 4, p. 167.

70 Theol. Moral., pars. 8, conf. 5, n. 105.

80 Comm. Hist, et Dogm. de Sacram. dist. 2 De Bapt. cap. 3, art. 3.

81 Theol. Moral, tr. 14 De Sacram. dist. 3, q. 3, n. 23.

82 Theol. Moral, lib. 6, tr. 2 De Bapt. dub. 7, par. 4, n. 22.

83 Theol. Moral, lib. 6, tr. 2 De Bapt. cap. 1, dub. 3.

84 Thus among others: Bellarmine, Saurez. Gotti, Tournely, Cornelius a
Lap. (Rom. 6, 3), Juenin, De Vivo, op. cit.

85 Bellarmine, Suarez, Gotti, Tournely, Cornelius a Lap. (I Cor. 1, 13),
Sylvius, op. cit.
80 Gotti, op. cit.

87 Cornelius a Lap. (Rom. 6, 3), Juenin, op. cit.
88 Saurez, Cornelius a Lap. (Horn. 6, 3), Tournely, Juenin, op. cit.

Apostles may have administered baptism in the form: in nomine
Patris et Filii ejus Jesu Christi et Spiritus Sancti. Thus Bellar-
mine (forsitan), Cornelius a Lap. (probabile) , Elbel (verosi-
milius), Ferraris, Juarez (potest). 89 This goes to show that in
spite of their diverse interpretations, the scholastics could not
escape the thought that the Acts and St. Paul' are to all appear-
ances opposed to the trinitariam text of Matthew, and that they
presuppose a different formula for baptism than that of Matthew.

3. The Modern Traditional View.

The modern traditional view is practically the same as that of
the later scholastics. The prevalent opinion is that the Apostles,
too,, used the trine form, ,and never baptised in the name of Jesus
alone. This opinion is held by Bingham, 80 Binterim., 91 Corblet, 02
C. Pesch, 93 Knoll, 94 Hurter, 95 Weiss, 96 Pohle-Preuss, 97 Scavini, 98
Van der Velden," Liebermann/ 00 Heinrich, 101 Kenrick/ 02 Van
Jtfoort, 103 Comely, 104 Knabenbauer, 105 Fanning, 106 Breen, 107
Vacant, 108 Esser, 100 Wilhelm-Scannell, 110 Plummer, 111 Bartmann/ 12
Diekamp/ 13 Bellamy, 114 Lepin/ 15 and others.

89 All in the works cited above.

90 The Antiquities of the Christian Church, vol. 1, Bk. XI, cap. 3, p. 484.

91 Denkwiirdigkeiten der Christ-Katholischen Kirche, I Bd. I Theil, p. 132.
02 Histoire Du Sacrement De Bapttoie, p. 287 sq.

03 Prael. Dogm., 6, n. 3'80. 94 Institut. Theol. p. 177 sq.

95 Theol. Spec. p. 228, n. 356.

08 Art. Taufte in Kraus's Realencyclop. p. 829 sq.

87 The Sacraments I, 224. 98 Theol. Moral. 3, n. 205, q. 2.

99 De Bapt. tr. 3, cap. 2, n. 82.

100 Institut. Theol. p. 418, n. 134 to p. 421, n. 136.

101 Dogm. Theol. 9, 282 sqq.

102 Theol. Dogm. p. 14, n. 54 reap. 10ft Cursus SS ad I Cor. 1, 17.

103 De Sacram. p. 144, n. 187, Scholion. 105 Cursus SS ad Mt. 28, 19.
108 Art. Baptism in Catholic Encyclopedia.

107 A Harm. Expos, of the Pour Gospels, 4, 667.

108 Art. Baptgme au nome de Jesus in Vigoroux's Diet, de la Bible.

100 Art. Taufe in Wetzer und Welte's Kirchenlex.

110 Manual of Cath. Theol. 2, 384.

111 Art. Baptism IV The History of Christian Bapt. in Hasting's Diet,
of the Bible. lla Lehrbuch der Dogmatik 2, 268-272.

113 Katholishe Dogmatik 3, 73 sq.

114 Art. I Bapteme dans la sainte ^criture 3. La formule du bapteme
s. v. Bapteme in Dictionnaire de ThSologie Catholique (Vacant & Mange-
not ) .

115 Art. iSvangiles Canoniques, n. 45, La formule trinitaire du baptSme
Mt. 28, 19, in Diet. Apologtique de la Foi Catholique (A. D'Ales).

Concerning the apostolic dispensation, C. Pesch says : " dis-
pensatio specialis pro temporibus Apostolorum gratis fingitur";
Knabenbaur calls it an opinion, " quae hodiedum apud theologos
merito est explosa " ; 116 Van Noort: "est merito antiquata, quid
fundamento caret "; li6 Heinrich: <( eine unnbthige und uribe-
grundete E r finding "j 116 Vacant: " cette opinion est generalment
rejetee aujourd' hui "V 16 Tanquerey is the only author, to my
knowledge, who puts the opinion of the older scholastics, (which
he calls the opinion of St. Thomas) on an equal footing with the
other, and dares to call them both " sententia communis '' '. 117

These authors explain the passages in the Acts in practically the
same manner as the later scholastics. Baptism in the name of
Christ, they say, may mean the baptism instituted by Christ,
administered in the person of Christ, thru which the recipient is
received into the faith and the Church of Christ, or baptism which
was administered after a public profession of faith in Christ.

In spite of the almost unanimous consent of the modern tradi-
tionalists regarding the use of the baptismal formula, we find a
few non-catholic authors, who try to reconcile the passages in Acts
and St. Paul with St. Matthew, by supposing that the Apostles
made use of a dual form, a christological form for the Jews, and
a trinitarian form for the Gentiles. The Jews, they claim, already
belonged to the Father, since they had been consecrated to his
service by circumcision. Hence it sufficed for them to be baptised
merely in the name of Jesus, in order that they might acknowledge
him as their Messiah and God; and in this profession of faith in
Jesus, was virtually contained their belief in the Father and the
Holy Ghost. The heathens, on the contrary, had not known the
Father, since they had worshiped idols of various sorts: neither
had they heard of the Holy Ghost; hence they had to be baptised
in the trinitarian form.

This explanation is as unfounded and ungrounded as was the
divine dispensation invented by the early scholastics. It is de-
fended by Plumptre, 118 Bengel, 119 Trollope, 120 and others.

Concerning the meaning of the words of Matthew: baptising

116 Op. cit.

""Theol. Spec. 2, 241, n. 22, 3 Scholion.

118 The Gospel according to Matthew in Ellicott's Commentary, vol. 1
ad loc.

110 Bengel-Lewis -Vincent, Gnomon of the NT, vol. 1 ad loc.
120 Analecta Theol. vol. 1 ad loc.

them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Ghost, some authors maintain that they clearly imply that the
trinitarian formula should be used in administering baptism. Thus
Curci/ 21 E. Abbot/ 22 Vacant/ 23 Kenrick/ 24 and moralists gen-
erally. They support their contention, however, by the authority
of the Fathers and by the praxis of the Church. Esser, C. Pesch,
Tanquerey, Liebermaim, Heinrich, Breen, Corblet 124 and others,
maintain that the words of Matthew do not clearly demand the
trine name as the essential form of baptism. They say that this
is established, however, by the authority and the praxis of the
Church. A number of authors express themselves hypothetically
on this point, to wit: if the invocation of the trine name is not
certain from Matthew, it is rendered certain by the tradition and
by the praxis of the Church. Thus Hurter/ 25 MacEvilly/ 26
Knabenbauer/ 25 and others.

Eeviewing the question from the conservative point of view, we
find that the official declarations of the Church set down as the
essential requirements for the valid administration of the sacra-
ment of baptism: 1) an ablution with water, and 2) an invocation
of the Trinity. This invocation of the Trinity is identified with
the form : I baptise thee in the name of the Father and of the Son
and of the Holy Ghost, only by Eugene IV in his Bull to the
Armenians.

The belief of the older scholastics in a divine dispensation must
be discarded as inadequate and arbitrary. The later scholastic and
the modern conservative view, which limits the application of Mt,
28, 19 to our present, exact baptismal formula: I baptise thee in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
seems just as unsatisfactory, in the light of P. de Puniet's master-
fully exact treatise Bapteme, published 1910 in Cabrol's Diction-
naire D'Archeologie Chretienne Et De Liturgie. 127 P. de Puniet
with a wealth of material has made the opinion highly probable
that the early Church interpreted the words of Matthew in a differ-
ent sense; and that the present baptismal formula was not in use

121 II Nuovo Testam. vol. 1 ad loc.

123 Art. Bapt. XI. The formula of Bapt. in SBD, p. 241.

123 L. c.

121 Op. cit.

125 Op. cit.

120 An Expositon of the Gospels, ad loc.

127 Col. 251-346: esp. the resume col. 336-346.

in the first five centuries, its place being supplied by the questions
of the ministrant regarding the Trinity and the corresponding
answers of the recipient. This view has been accepted unqualifiedly
by. M. J. Metzger in 1914. 128 It has been lately rejected by two
dogmatists,, in 1921 by Bernhard Bartmann, 120 and in 1.922 by
Franz Diekamp. 130

The difficulties attending the interpretation of Mt. 28, 19 in the
light of the texts of the Acts and St. Paul, will never be adequately
solved, except, perhaps, along the lines of the new investigation.
We must bear in mind that not every time that the Fathers and
the Councils speak of the invocation of the Trinity in connection
with baptism, our present baptismal formula must necessarily be
meant. There is the possibility and probability of the use of a
form other than the one with which we are familiar ; and this must
be considered in any serious attempt to solve the longstanding
riddle.

128 Zwei Karolingische Fontifikalien vom Oberrhein. Freiburger Theolo-
gisehe Studien. Freiburg im Breisgau. pp. 166-169.
120 Lehrbuch der Dogmatik, 2, 269 sq.
130 Katholische Dogmatik, 3, 74.

CHAPTER II

THE RADICAL SCHOOL

The radical view of the- text of Mt. 28, 19 arose in late years.
The exponents of this view may be divided into two groups: the
negative and the positive. The negative seeks to overthrow the
historicity or the authenticity of the text by internal evidence, the
positive by external evidence.

1. The Negative View.

The negative school of critics build up their theory on the evi-
dence afforded by the literary and historical criticism of parallel
passages in the other Gospels, the Book of Acts and the Epistles
of St. Paul.

The parallel passages in the other Gospels are Mk. 16, 15-18;
Lk. 24, 44-49; Jn. 20, 21-23.

The text of Mark runs : " Going into the whole world, announce
the Gospel to every creature. He that believes and is baptised,
shall be saved. He that does not believe shall be condemned".
Here baptism is indeed mentioned; but nothing is said of the trine
form. Then, the conclusion of Mk. 16, 9-20 is regarded by these
authors as beyond doubt a patch-work, appended to Mark in place
of the original section which has been lost. Thus this passage
affords proof that baptism was connected with the preaching of the
Gospel at the time in which this section was written ; but, even at
that, it does not support the trinitarian passage of Matthew.

The corresponding verse in Luke reads: "(He said to them that
it is written) that penance should be announced to all the nations
in his name unto remission of sins ". Consequently nothing is
said about baptism. This is considered an especially strong case
against the authenticity of Mt. 28, 19; for either Luke knew of
the commission to baptise (whether in the trine name or not), and
omitted it, or he did not know of it. Had he known of it, it is
thought impossible that he should have omitted it.

The text in John is : " He said to them, peace be to you. As the
Father has sent me, so I send you". Thus neither does John
mention a single word about the commission to baptise. This
omission, however, is not held to be as strong an argument against
the authenticity or historicity of Mt. 28, 19 as the similar omission
26

by Luke; since John is thought to show a tendency to omit the
material side of the sacramental rites, because of a movement to
overemphasize their importance. 1

The stronghold of the negative view, however, is set in the net-
work of knotted problems suggested by the passages in the Acts
and the Letters of St. Paul. These passages seem to point to the
earliest form as baptism in the name of the Lord. The trine form
of baptism, it is upheld, is found in no scripture text outside of
Mt. 28, 19; neither is it found in any writing previous to the
Didache 7, 1, and Justin's Apology 1, 61. The shorter form on
the contrary, is said to have been used by the Apostles (since it
alone is mentioned in the Acts and the Letters of St. Paul), by the
Christians of the second century, and here and there in the third
century.

Is it possible to reconcile these facts with the belief that Christ
commanded his disciples to baptise in the trine form? Had
Christ given such a command, it is urged, the Apostolic Church
would have followed him, and we should have some trace of this
obedience in the New Testament. No such trace can be found.
The only explanation of this silence, according to the anti-
traditional view, is that the short christological formula was
original, and the longer trine formula was a later development.

These views are held by Weiss-Eaton, 2 Feine, 3 Eiehm, 4 Schenkel, 5
Fisher, Eobinson, 7 Scott, 8 Lake, 9 and others.

Another great difficulty in the eyes of these higher critics, is
St. Paul's remark in I Cor. 1, 17: "For Christ sent me not to
baptise, ~bui to preach the Gospel ". It is urged with great force
that accordingly St. Paul did not consider the administration of
baptism as the peculiar function or prerogative of an Apostle, or
of any ecclesiastical official; in fact he was not convinced of the
importance of baptism at all. But certainly Paul could not, and
would not, have written in such a strain, had Christ given a definite

1 Cf . K. Lake art. Baptism (Early Christian) in (Easting's ERE, p.
379 sqq.

a Bibl. Theol. of NT 1, 187, n. 1.

3 Theol. des NT, p. 211.

4 Art. Taufe in Handworterb. des Bibl. Altherth.

Art. Taufe in Bibel -lexicon, p. 464 sq.

History of Christian Doctrine, p. 46.

7 Art. Baptism in EB (heyne and Black).

8 Art. Baptism in HBD (I), p. 83.

D Art. Baptism in ERE, p. 380 sq.

command to baptise. This point is emphasized by Martineau, 10
Bartlett, 11 McGiffert, 12 Feine, 13 Schenkel," etc.

Then, too, the firm stand which Paul was forced to take against
the other Apostles in favor of the pagan missions, is claimed to be
entirely unintelligible in the light of Mt. 28, 19; for the solemn
command of the Savior contained in that verse, to make disciples
of all the nations and to baptise them, should have removed every
scruple from the minds of the Apostles against PauFs mission.

But, we know from the second chapter of the letter to the Gala-
tians, that the Apostles James, and Cephas, and John were induced
to approve Paul's missionary career among the Gentiles, not on
account of the command of the risen Savior, but on account of
their conviction that the grace of God was with Paul's work.
Moreover, if Mt. 28, 19 were authentic, the missionary districts
would never have been so divided at the Apostolic Council, that
Peter became KOT' eoxV the Apostle of the circumcision, and Paul
with Barnabas ar' eoxV the Apostle of the Gentiles. This point
is brought out especially by Feine. 15

To these arguments we must add the objections drawn from the
doctrine contained in Mt. 28, 19, viz: the doctrine of the univer-
sality of salvation, and of the Holy Trinity. Since these dogmas,
according to the anti-traditionalists, reached, only at a late period,
that stage of development postulated by the words, which Matthew
puts on the lips of the risen Savior, their position in the First
Gospel is claimed to be a clear instance of historical anachronism.
Thus, among others, Martineau, McGiffert, Bartlett, Feine, in the
works cited above.

The result of this higher, internal criticism is that some authors
deny the authenticity of the text, while others deny merely its
historicity. The first class claim that the text in question was
added later, at a time when the primitive christological mode of
baptising had been replaced by the trinitarian form; consequently,
at a time, too, when the doctrine of the Trinity had been fully
evolved.

The second class admit that the verse was written by Matthew

10 The Seat of Authority in Religion, Bk. IV, ch. IV, p. 516.

11 Art. Baptism NT in EEE, p. 376.

13 The Apostolic Age, p. 61.
1:1 Theol. des NT, p. 213.

14 Art. Taufe in Bibel -lexicon.
1B Theol. des NT, p. 212 sq.

(or the writer of the First Gospel) , but deny that the words were
ever spoken by our Lord. To them the text in dispute crystallises
the tendency peculiar to Matthew of " systematising the dogmatic,
constitutional, and liturgical relations of the Jewish-christian
world, for which he wrote". 16 In their opinion Matthew in this
text refers to the Lord and bases on his authority an institution,
which was the outgrowth of the private ordinances of the Christian
Community.

In either case, however, the value of Mt. 28, 19 as a proof -text
for the institution of baptism by Christ is done away with.

2. The Positive Vieiv.

We now come to the second group in the radical school, com-
posed of those authors, who reject the authenticity of Mt. 28, 19
on account of external evidence: the textual difficulties in the
manuscripts, versions and the works of the Fathers. The con-
. troversy concerning the authenticity of the text from this angle,
may be said to have forced its attention upon the scientific world,
with the appearance of F. C. Conybeare's article, entitled The
Eusebian Form of the text Mt. 28, 19, published in the Zeitschrift
fur neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1901. i7

In this article Conybeare pursues a line of argument, which leads
him almost exclusively thru the books of Eusebius of Caesarea.
He claims to recognise in these works traces of an earlier form of
text than that recorded in our present canonical Gospel. The re-
sult of his investigation is, that there are 17 passages scattered
thruout the various works of Eusebius, in which Mt. 28, 19 is
quoted, not as we have it in the textus receptus, but in the form :
7ro/>eu0evres fjua6t]rev<ra,re travra TO, Wvr\ ev rta ovojuart JU.OTJ, omitting,
consequently, every reference to baptism and to the doctrine of the
Trinity. The textus receptus, on the other hand, is found in three
passages of Eusebius's works; but these, it is emphasized, were
written in the last period of his literary activity, which fell after
the Council of Nice.

Following in the wake of this discovery, Conybeare finds "two
writers earlier than Eusebius", who "shew a knowledge of this
shorter form of text", altho "neither of them formally cite the

10 Holtzmann Neutl. Theol. 1, 449. iSee also Bartlett, 1. c., p. 376; and
E. Teichmann, Die Taufe bei Paulus, in Zeitschrift fur Theol. u. Kirch.,
1896, p. 357.

17 Pp. 275-288.

passage, but rather echo it". 18 These two writers are Justin
Martyr 10 and Hernias. 20

In the cursory treatment which he thereupon devotes to the
other patristic writings, Conybeare admits that the textus receptus
is found in the Latin version of Irenaeus m, 17, 1 ; in Tertullian
De Baptismo., ch. 13, and De Praescriptione, chs. 8 and 20 ; in the
Clementine Homilies xi, 26; in the Recognitions, as translated
by Eufinus ; and in Hippolytus, Contra Noetum.

The testimony of the Didache 7, 1 and of the Acta Thomae he

\f S

tries to weaken by the suggestion that the first is suspicious on
account of the occurrence in 9, 4 of the phrase : ol paTmo-OevTes eis
OJ/O/AO, Kvpiov ; while the latter is balanced by a rival Gnostic formula.

Thus, too, he rejects the testimony of Origen's homilies as trans-
lated by Eufinus on the ground that the translation is unreliable;
whereas the reference to the use of the trinitarian formula, which
Origen has in his Greek Commentary on John (torn, vi, par. 17),
he says, does not prove that the present text of Mt. 28, 19 was in
his copies of the New Testament, anymore than that they were in
those of Eusebius ; since the passage in question refers to the trine
epiclesis, which was used in Origen's akolouthia of baptism.

Passing on to the controversy which raged in the third century
between St. Cyprian and Pope Stephen I concerning the baptism
of heretics, he explains the position of Stephen of Eome, ("that
baptism in the name of Christ alone was quite valid") by the
assumption that the text of Mt. 28, 19 had not yet been authori-
tatively settled by the Church.

The result of this article Conybeare puts in the form of four
questions :

"1. Is the Eusebian and Justin's reading of Mt. 28, 19
original ?

2. If so, was not the textus receptus created about 130-140 ?

3. Was it not due to a reaction on the text of Matthew of
liturgical, and, specially, of baptismal usage?

4. Did it not arise like the text of the three witnesses in the
African Old Latin texts first of all, thence creep into the Greek
texts at Eome, and finally establish itself in the East during the
Mcene epoch, in time to figure in all surviving codices ? "

The following year (1902), Conybeare resumed his thesis in the

18 L. c. p. 282, n. 26.

19 Dialogue with Tryphon, 39.

20 Pastor, Simil. IX, 17, 4.

Hibbert Journal/ 1 and presented his conclusions there as per-
emptory and unanswerable. In fact he shook off the reserve of the
guarded scholar, and took on the airs of an infallible dogmatist,
when he asserted that he had adduced such weighty patristic evi-
dence against the authenticity of Mt. 28, 19 " that in future the
most conservative of divines " would " shrink from resting on it
any dogmatic fabric at all, while the more enlightened" would
"discard it as completely as they have its fellow-text of the three
witnesses ", 22

In this second article Conybeare emphasizes the advantages
which Eusebius enjoyed, living and working as he did in the
greatest Christian library of the age, in which Origen and Pam-
philus must have collected and sorted manuscripts, ante-dating
our oldest uncials by 50-150 years.

It was in these old manuscripts, Conybeare asserts, that Eusebius

found the text : TropevOevres paOrjTevcraTe iravra TO. Wvf] iv r<5 ovopjari

/AOU ; in fact, he continues, Eusebiiis never heard of any other text,
until he visited Constantinople and attended the Council of Nice.
Then in two controversial works, written in his extreme old age
and entitled, the one Contra Marcellum, the other De Ecclesiastica
Theologia, he used the common reading. There is also one other
writing, he says, in which the textus receptus occurs, viz: a letter
written to his diocese at Caesarea after the Council of Nice; but
that portion of it in which the citation occurs, does not seem to
be above suspicion.

In two further articles in the Zeitschrift fur neutestamentliche
Wissenschaft; one in 1903, 23 the other in 1905, 24 Oonybeare did
his best to prove that the books Contra Marcellum and De Ecclesi-
astica Theologia were not composed by Eusebius Pamphili (i. e.,
disciple of Pamphilus), but by Eusebius of Emesa, and also that
the trinitarian citation in the Letter to Caesarea was interpolated,
thereby ridding himself forever, as he thought, of those conflicting
citations in the works of Eusebius, which clashed with his theory,
but which could not be brushed aside with good grace as the mere
outgrowth of the Nicene influence.

Conybeare was answered by J. E. Wilkinson in the Hibbert

21 Art. Three Early Doctrinal Modifications of the Text of the Gospels.
II. Matthew, 28, 19, pp. 102- 108.
512 L. c.

23 Art. The Authorship of the Contra Marcellum, pp. 330-334.

24 Art. The Authorship of the Contra Marcellum, pp. 250^270.

Journal 1903. 25 According to Wilkinson, Conybeare has proved
that Eusebius's text read: fJMOrjTevaare Trdvra ra edvr) fv r<a ovopuri
pov, but he has not proved that the Ensebian text omitted the
words: /?a,7movTe<? avrous KT\. He maintains that the form pre-
supposed in the manuscripts known to Eusebius, was: TropeufleWs
/Aa&yreuo-are Travra ra WVT] iv rw ovofjuari JJLOV, /JaTTTt^oj/res a/urou? ets TO
ovo^ia roii Trarpos /ecu rov vtov /cat rov ayiov irvevfULTOs.

The theory of Conybeare was furthermore opposed by Eiggenbach
in the Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher Theologie VII, 1, 1903? Q
Then again by F. H. Chase in the Journal of Theological Studies
1905. 2T These two scholars ably refute Conybeare inch by inch,
showing that he had not proved the absence of the baptismal com-
mand from the Eusebian text, and that the trinitarian text is
commonly attested to by witnesses before Eusebius. The arguments
of these two authors have been utilised and well ordered by
Lebreton in his work Les Origines Du Dog me De La Trinite 1910. 28

The refutation of Eiggenbach and Chase has been accepted by
Eose, 29 Zahn, 30 Holtzmann, 31 Feine, 32 E. Schiirer, 83 Jacquier, 34
Eobinson, 35 Maclean, 36 Lepin, 37 Diekamp, 33 and Lebreton (op. cit.),
who mentions also Harnack, E. Seeberg, Swete, Tixeront.

Conybeare's theory, however, has found support with Eashdall, 30
N. Schmidt, 40 Wellhausen, 41 K. Lake. 42 Lebreton mentions besides
H. Usener, Loisy and Kriiger.

This, then, is the main position of the second group of the

25 Article in answer to Conybeare, pp. 571-576.

20 Der Trinitarische Taufbefehl, pp. 7-l | 03; also Nachtrag VIII, p. 105 sq.

27 The Lord's Command to Baptize (Mt. 28, 19), pp. 481-517.

28 Pp. 479 sqq.

^vang. selon S. Matt. p. 231.
30 Evang. Mt. ad loc. p. 720.
31 Neutl. Theol. pp. 449-450, note 3.
32 Theol. des NT, p. 211.

33 Theol. Literaturzeitung 190>3, n. 15, pp. 424-426.

34 Histoire des Livres Du N't 1905, 2, 498 sq.
85 JThSt. 1905 In the name, p. 186.

38 Art. Baptism 4. Formula of Baptism in Basting's DAC, p. 130 A.

37 Art. :Evangiles Canoniques, n. 45, La formule trinitaire du baptgme
in Diet. Apol. de la foi Cath.

38 Op. cit. p. 230 sq.

30 JThSt 1901-2, Art. Dr. Moberly's Theory of the Atonement, p. 181.

40 Art. Son of God in EB, p. 4699.

41 Das Evan. Matth. ad loc,

43 Art. Baptism (Early Christian) in ERE.

radical school. Tho this group differs in method from the first,
the result of their investigation is practically the same as that of
the former. In either case, whether Mt. 28, 19 is considered un-
authentic, or merely unhistorical, the text cannot be used to
prove that Christ instituted baptism. How then did Christian
baptism arise?

JSTone of these authors deny the fact that baptism was practiced
in the earliest Christian community. 43 The evidence of the Acts
does not permit such a denial. "Was this practice, then, based on
an explicit command of the Lord, or did it have its origin else-
where ?

The majority of the anti-traditionalists maintain that Christian
baptism was instituted by Christ at least in a general way, cer-
tainly not in the trinitarian form. A few, more radical, however,
even deny the institution by Christ, and suggest that baptism was
an already existing custom, which the Church took over from the
beginning. 44

The nature of our present work will not allow us to present a
detailed study of the problems encircling the text of Matthew both
from the conservative and the radical point of view. But since it
will be impossible to enter upon a study of the interpretation of
the text, before its authenticity is established, and since it is not
advisable to consider the arguments of higher criticism before the
difficulties of textual criticism have been duly examined, we shall
limit the scope of the present writing to a detailed consideration
of the difficulties advanced by the positive group of the radical
school, >as it is represented in the articles of F. C. Conybeare from
1901 to 1905, with special reference to the works of Eusebius,
since his writings form the marrow of that attack. This is made
all the more necessary by the fact that Conybeare's last article of
1905, has been .answered merely by one person, to my knowledge,
G-. Loeschcke, who wrote an able, but brief refutation to Conybeare,
in the Zeitschrift fur neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 1906, en-
titled Contra Marcellum, erne Schrift des Eusebius von Caesarea
(pp. 69-76). We shall consider first the evidence of the manu-
scripts and versions, and then the citations in the works of
Eusebius.

4:1 See Feine Art. Taufe I. Schriftlehre I. Ursprung und tibung, in Real-
cncyclop. fttr protestantische Theol. und Kirche 3 , p. 398.
44 Cf. Lake and Holtzmann, op. cit.

PART II

THE LORD'S COMMAND TO BAPTISE

IN
EUSEBIUS

PRELIMINAEY NOTE

MANUSCKIPTS AND VERSIONS

To one who is at all acquainted with the present controversy
regarding Mt. 28, 19,, it comes as a distinct surprise that the evi-
dence of the manuscripts and versions is overwhelmingly in favor
of the authenticity of the passage. The verse as a whole is con-
tained in all extant manuscripts and versions with the exception of
Syr. Sinaiticus, Syr. Curetoniaims and Bobiensis. These manu-
scripts are fragmentary in many parts. The Gospel of Matthew
in Syr. Sinaiticus ends with chapter 28, verse 7; the rest of the
Gospel has been lost. 1 Curetonianus stops at chapter 23, verse 25. 2
Bobiensis has nothing after chapter 15, verse 36. 3

In view of this almost unanimous consensus of the manuscripts,
it is rather surprising to find men of such undoubted scholarship
as F. C. Conybeare 4 and K. Lake, 5 trying to minimise the weight
of this evidence, by emphasizing the defect of the oldest African
and Syrian manuscripts at this point.

The fact that Curetonian has nothing in Matthew after 23, 25,
and Bobiensis nothing after 15, 36, cannot even by the wildest
stretch of the imagination be ascribed to the vandalistic efforts of a
" dominant party ", who purposely sought to suppress a more an-
cient, and therefore presumably untrinitarian reading of Mt. 28, 19.

The case of Siniaticus, it is true, is somewhat different. Here
the last folio is missing; but, even at that, there is no reason to
assume that this was done on purpose, and was not due rather to
the ravages of time. In itself this defect in Sinaiticus, and a for-
tiori in Curetonianus and Bobiensis is neither an argument for,

1 Cf. The Four Gospels in Syriac, Translated from the Sinaitic Palimp-
sest, by Bensley, Harris and Burkitt,, 1894.

2 Cf . Remains of a Very Antient Recension of the Four Gospels in Syriac,
by W. Cureton, 1858; also Evangelion Da-Mepharresche, by F. C. Burkitt,
1904.

3 Old Latin Biblical Texts No. II, by John Wordsworth, W. Sanday and
H. J. White, Oxford, 1886.

4 Hibbert Journal art. Three Early (Doctrinal Modifications of the Text
of the Gospels, 1902, p. 108.
"Article Baptism (Early Christian) in ERE, p. 379.

nor against, the authenticity of the textus receptus,, and does not
in the least affect the testimony of the other manuscripts.

If we be allowed any conjecture regarding the original reading
of the text in Bobiensis, we should certainly decide in favor of the
traditional reading, since this reading is found in Palatinus and in
the biblical citations of St. Cyprian, with which Bobiensis has
clear affinities. 6 The same may be said of Syr. Sinaiticus and
Curetonianus, since the textus receptus is found in Tatian's Dia-
tessaron. 7

But according to Conybeare such an argument is inadmissible;
for long before the year 400 "the question of the inclusion of the
Holy Spirit on equal terms in the Trinity had been threshed out,
and a text so invaluable to the dominant party could not but make
its way into every codex, irrespectively of its textual affinities ". s

No better reply could be made to such a dogmatic statement than
that of F. H. Chase in the Journal of Theological Studies, 1905?
viz : " all the surviving Greek codices were not produced by a band
of conspirators. They grew up naturally in different portions of
the Greek-speaking Church. An interpolation could not be thus
foisted into the text of the Gospels, and all evidence of its true
character be obliterated".

Were Conybeare's statement correct, that our present textus
receptus is the result of a systematic suppression of an earlier,
untrinitarian text, a suppression carried on so thoroly, so uni-
versally, and so ruthlessly as not to leave a single trace of the
original text in any existing manuscript or version, we should be
confronted by a marvel unparalleled in the history of our text-
transmission. "We have clear instances of interpolations in our
accepted text, some dating back to very ancient times; yet the
evidence of the manuscripts have preserved for us the original along
with the interpolated.

Let us take the well-known case of the Three Witnesses (I John
5, 7. 8), which Conybeare asserts has now been " abandoned by all

Of. the detailed study on the relation between Bobiensis, Palatinus and
St. Cyprian, by W. Sanday, in Old Latin Biblical Texts: No. II, Oxford,
1886, Introduction XLIII-OLXVL

7 Of. the critical apparatus of H. J. Vogels Novum Test, graece 1920 ad
loc.; also, the Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. IX, New York, 1896, p. 128.

8 Hibbert Journal, 1902, p. 108, Three Early Modif . of the Texts of the
Gospels.

9 The Lord's Command To Baptize, p. 499.

authorities except the Pope of Kome". 10 This text is found in
one Old Latin manuscript (r), in most of the manuscripts of the
Latin Vulgate (but not in the best as Amiatinus and Fuldensis),
in some African Latin Fathers of the fifth and sixth centuries,
and in the Spanish writer Priscillian (d. 385). The only authority
for the Greek text are two cursive manuscripts (162. 34), belonging
respectively to the fifteenth and sixteenth, centuries. 11 Yet despite
this feeble support in the manuscripts, Conybeare does not hesitate
to set this text as a parallel alongside of Mt. 28, 19.

Then again there is the passage in Acts 8, 37, in which a question
is proposed by the deacon Philip and a confession of faith is made
by the Eunuch in imitation of later baptismal practice. This in-
terpolation goes back to earliest antiquity; yet we know that its
chief support in the manuscripts is had in Laudianus of the sixth
century, in the Old Latin and in the Syrian Harcleian Version. 12

Consequently the case of Mt. 28, 19 inasfar as the manuscripts
and versions are concerned, must be judged to be exceptionally
strong. " It is only when we shut our eyes to facts that we can
persuade ourselves or allow ourselves to be persuaded, that it was
possible for words to have been interpolated into the text of the
Gospels, without a trace of their true character surviving in the
manuscripts and versions ". 13

"Hibbert Journal, 1902, p. 102.

Cf. F. H. Ohase, JThSt, 1905, p. 498; also H. J. Vogels, Nov. Test,
graece ad loc.

12 Cf. H. J. Vogels, 1. c.; also Chase, 1. c.

13 F. H. Chase, 1. c., p. 499.

CHAPTEE I

STATE OF THE PROBLEM

The main basis for Conybeare's attack against the textus recep-
tus, however, is furnished by the citations of Mt. 28,, 19 in the
writings of the Fathers, and preponderantly in the works of
Eusebius, surnamed Pamphili, the most learned scripture scholar
in the early fourth century (265-339). Since F. H. Chase and
especially E. Riggenbach have clearly established the existence of
the received text in manuscripts of the New Testament, known to
writers before Eusebius, we shall limit ourselves to Eusebius's
writings, and submit his works to a thoro examination.

We can distinguish three principal forms, in which Eusebius
cites the words of Mt. 28, 19 :

1. Tiopf.v6*VTG<5 pja.QfjTf.'va'are trdvTa TO. eOvrj,

2. Hopev0VT<s (JiaOr}TvoraT6 irdvTa rot, fdvrj ev TU> ovo/jm ju,oi>,

3. IIopev0ei'Ts [MiOijTevoraTG iravro. TO, Hdvr], ySaTrrt^oi/res awovs et? TO

rov Trarpos /cat row vlov KCU TOV ayiov Trvev/xaros.

The first form is found in:

1. Dem. Evang. 13 MG- 22 40 A;

2. " 14 " " 44 B;

3. " 16 " " 68 A;

4. Comm. in Ps. 46 4 " 23 416 A;

5. " " 95 3 1221 C;

6. De Eccles. Theol. 33 "24 989 A;

7. <Syriac Theoph. 3 4 Gressmann 129* ;

Numbers 1, 2, 3 add to this form : StSao-KOi/re? avrou? rrjpeiv TTO.VTO. oo-a

The second form occurs in:

8. Hist. Eccles. 35 MG- 20 2210;

9. De Laud. Const. 16 " " 1425 C;
10. Dem. Evan. 36 "22 233 A ;

11-13. " (thrice) 37 240A-C;241D;

14. " " 9 " " 692 D;

15. Comm. in Ps. 59 9 " 23 569 C;

16. " 65 5 653 D;

17. " " 67 34 " " 720 C;

18. " " 76 20 " 900 C;

19. Comm. in Is. 18 20 MG 23 900 C;

20. " " 34 16 " " 337 C;

21. Syriac Theoph. 4 16 ed. G-ressmann 189* ;

22. " " 5 17 " 228*;

23. " " 5 46 " 252*;

24. " " 5 49 " 255*;
Number 10 and 22 add to this citation : SiSao-Kovres avrovs

6<ra ei/TiXa/A^i/ v/uv.

The third form is used in:

25. Contra MarceU. 11 MG- 24 716 B;

26. " 11 " " 728 C;

27. De Eccles. Theol. 35 1013 A;

28. Syriac Theoph. 4 8 ed. Gressmann 177* ;

29. Epistola ad Caesarea. (Socrates H. E. 1 8)

MG 67 72 A;
also " 20 1537 C.

In view of these facts it is clear, that if the citations of the third
group are authentic, and if the works in which they appear were
written by Eusebius, the conclusion must follow that Eusebius was
acquainted with the traditional text,, and regarded it as an authentic
part of Matthew's Gospel. The force of this conclusion did not
escape Conybeare's notice ; accordingly in his articles of 1901 x and
1902, 2 he attributed the presence of the received text in the later
books of Eusebius, to the influence of the Council of Nice, claiming
that before the Council Eusebius knew the text only in the form :
IlopeufleWes fjiaB^revcrarc iravra TO. Wvrj f.v TO> 6voju,ari /AOV, StSao-Kovres
aurovs rrjpelv iravra ocra ej/ereiXa^v vfuv.

This claim seems to be borne out by the fact, that the treatises
in which the textus receptus occurs, were all written after the
Council of Nice. But when we bear in mind tha,t out of the 24
passages of the first two groups, the two from the Commentary
on Isaias are of uncertain date, the eight from the Dem. Evang.
were written before 311, the one from the Hist. Eccles. about 313,
whereas the remaining thirteen were written after the Council, viz :
six from the Commentary on the Psalms after 330? five from the

The Eusebian Form of the Text Mt. 28, 19, p. 288.

2 The Hibbert Journal: Three Early Modifications of the Text of the
Gospel. II Mt. 28, 19, pp. 102-6.

3 A. Harnack, Die Chronologic d. Altclhrist. Literatur bis Eusebius II, 2,
Leipzig, 1904, p. 123, n. 20.

Theophany about 333 4 , one from the De Laudibus Constantini
337, 5 and one from the De Eccles. Theol 337/8, it must be
granted that the Council of Nice did not influence Eusebius one
way or the other. He uses both forms after the Council, some-
times in the very same book (cf. De Eccles. Theol. 3, 3 and 3, 5).

It was probably the strained and halting state of this argument
that induced Conybeare in 1903 7 to attack Eusebius's authorship
of the Contra Marcellum and the De Eccles. Theol., and to continue
that attack in 1905 8 also against the Letter to the Church in
Caesarea. Since it is of vital importance: to know whether these
works were actually written by Eusebius or not, we shall consider
the question of their authorship here.

First, let us remark, that the received text occurs also in the
Syriac Theophany, which has come down to us entire, and which
A. Harnack thinks 9 was a synchronous translation of the Greek
original, of which we have at present many fragments. 10 Now,
despite the fact that the Syriac translator is so slavishly true to
the original Greek that he does violence to the Syriac idiom, so
much so in fact, that as Gressmann remarks, 11 it is necessary at
times to retranslate the text into the Greek to get at the sense of
the translation, still for the sake of argument we shall waive the
evidence of this translation, since Conybeare accuses the translator
of " garbling his text " and of copying the five verses in 4, 8
from the Syriac Vulgate in order to save himself labor. 13

*Hugo Gressmann, Studien zu Eusebs Theophanie TU, Leipzig, 1903.
Neue Folge, VIII Bd. 3. Heft, p. 42; also his edition of the Theophany in,
Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller Eusebius' Werke, III Bd. 2.
Halfte, p. xx, 1904.

6 A. 'Harnack, 1. c. p. 115; Gressmann, however, in Studien zu Eusebs
Theophanie TU, p. 39, thinks it was 335.

8 A. Harnack, 1. c. p. 125, n. 27.

7 ZNTW: The Authorship of the Contra Marcellum, pp. 330-334.

8 ZNTW: The Authorship of the Contra Marcellum, pp. 250-270.

L. c. p. 120, n. 14.

10 Samuel Lee published the Syriac text at London, 1842, and an English
translation at Cambridge, 1843. A collection of the Greek fragments was
published in 1847 by Angelo Mai in his Bibliotheca Nova Patrum IV;
these fragments are reprinted in Migne PG, 24, 609-690. In 1904 Hugo
Gressmann published >a critical German translation of the Syriac Theo-
phany.

11 L. c. p. xxiv.

12 ZNTW, 1901, p. 279, note 1.

"ZNTW, 1901, p. 281, n. 24; also ZNTW, 1905, p. 267.

CHAPTER II

THE AUTHORSHIP OF THE CONTRA MAROELLUM AND THE LETTER

TO THE CHURCH OF CAESAREA

1. The Contra Marcellum.

Accordingly we come to the five books Contra Marcellum, the
first two of which are commonly called Contra Marcellum, the last
three De Ecclesiastica Theologia. Conybeare's main argument in
his article of 1903 x against Eusebius's authorship of these books,
is briefly the following :

The writer of the Contra Marcellum 2 quotes a letter of Mar-
cellus. Epiphanius, 3 also, quotes a letter of Marcellus to Julius,
Bishop of Rome. A comparison of the two letters proves them to
be identical. Now, the letter of Marcellus to Julius was written
in 340. Therefore, the work Contra Marcellum in which this letter
appears, and the treatise De Ecclesiastica Theologia,, which followed
the former work, could not have been written by Eusebius of
Caesarea, since he died in 338 or 339. Consequently, the five books
were written by some other author ; the dedication of the last three
books to Flacillus, indicates Eusebius of Emesa as the author.

Setting aside the fact that C. P. Caspari in his work Quellen
zur Geschichte des Tauf symbols Und der G-laubensregel 4 brings
reasons which cause him to fix the date of the letter of Marcellus
to Julius as most probably 337 or 338 (reasons which A. Harnack
approves), 5 and meeting Conybeare for the time being on his own
ground (as F. H. Chase does in his article of 1905, 6 admitting as
he does that the passage in question is a letter of Marcellus*), we
must still say that the two letters far from being identical are
entirely different in form. This is evident from a comparison of
the creed contained in either letter, and to which the citation in

1 ZNTW, pp. 330-334.
2 1, 4, MG, 24, 752 B, sq.
3 Haer. 72, 2 sq. MG, 42, 384, C sq.
* III Bd. Christiana, 1875, note 60, pp. 28-30.
6 L. c. p. 544, n. 4.

e JThSft, the Authorship of the Contra Marcellum and the De Ecclesi-
astica Theologia, pp. 512-517.

the Contra Marcellum is practically limited. The creeds here
follow side by side :

I II

CONTRA MARCELLUM EPIPHANIUS

He wrote . . . (that he) believes I believe therefore in God Al-

in God Father Almighty (irarepa mighty and Christ Jesus, his only

Qebv Tra.vTOKpa.Topa) and in his Son, begotten Son, our Lord. . . And in

the only begotten God (TOV povoyevfi the Holy Ghost.
0e6v) , our Lord Jesus Christ, and
in the Holy Ghost.

To anyone who bears in mind the stereotyped forms of the old
symbols of faith., it will be at once evident that these two creeds
are not identical. We notice first of all the insertion of Trarepa in
the first creed ; then the different order in which the titles of Jesus
Christ follow : I has : " and in his Son, the only begotten GOD,
our Lord Jesus Christ " ; whereas II has : " and in Christ Jesus,
his only begotten Son our Lord". The occurrence of "the only
begotten GOD " in I is especially striking.

But the passage in the Contra Marcellum, as A. Harnack 7 and
Bethune-Baker 8 point out,, is not at all a letter of Marcellus.
Conybeare read the passage in Gaisford's edition, which indeed
gives it as a citation from Marcellus; so also does the edition of
Migne. But the context shows that Eusebius begins his citation
from the book of Marcellus with the sentence preceding the creed ;
and the passage in question is in turn a citation which Marcellus
makes from a letter of Asterius., whom he is opposing.

Eusebius introduces the citation thus: Tpd<j>ei 8' oi>v oVo/wio-Ti,
/ca,K<3<j fJW7)p,oveva)v atrdvTwv, TOVTOV TOV Tpoirov. Then follows the 6X-
cerpt from Marcellus' s book, which goes from : y Apojuat roivw . . .
to ... KOL TO ayiov Trve.vp.cL wo-auras. Thereupon Eusebius. resumes
the discourse : Tavra 6 MapKeAAos Trpos 'Ao-re'ptov KT\. It was divided
in this way already in the edition of Kettberg 1794, and was em-
phasized by Montacutius, and has been adopted by Erich Kloster-
mann in his edition of 1906. 10

Conybeare himself saw his error and admitted it in his article

T L. c. p. 544 sq. n. 4.

"JThSt, 1905, pp. 517-521.

MG, 24, 752, note 1.

10 Griechische Christliche iSchriftsteller Eusebius' Werke, IV Bd. Leipzig,
1906. His 'apparatus criticus gives Th. Zahn, Marcellus von Ancyra, 1867,
p. 54, as holding the same vie\v.

of 1905. 11 However he continued to oppose Eusebius's authorship
on different grounds. This new attack was answered briefly by
G. Loeschcke. 12

Conybeare's trend of thought in the article of 1905 is this:
Even tho the passage in Contra Marcellum 1, 4 does not refer to
the letter which Marcellus wrote to Pope Julius in 340, still the
opening lines of the second book of the same work clearly show
that the a,uthor of the Contra Marcellum knew that letter, and
was aware of the resultant deception it practiced on the Pope.
Hence Eusebius Pamphili cannot be the author.

In answer to this we must say that the first two books of the
Contra Marcellum form one unit, since they were written at the
same time against Marcellus; and any expression occurring in
them, must be explained and interpreted in the light of the whole.
It is an arbitrary, unpardonable procedure to segregate any one
passage from its context, and to read into it a meaning unwar-
ranted by that context.

Now, in the opening chapter of the Contra Marcellum, Book 1,
we are told that the author is refuting a treatise written by Mar-
cellus, in fact the only treatise which Marcellus ever wrote (ev
TOVTL -ypdil/as /cat povov . . . o-uyypa/ttyia) , 13 This o-uyy/wz/z/za is shortly
afterward called <pa<?7, 14 an ^ much later in the second book it is
called y/aa/^wi. 15 In this treatise, we are informed, Marcellus calum-
niates both the living and the dead, and even subjects the Son of
God to blasphemy. It is the author's purpose to refute his slanders
and to expose his blasphemies, from his own words. But before
taking up this program, he devotes two chapters, the second and
the third, in destroying his readers' confidence in Marcellus's
orthodoxy and intellectual ability. Thereupon he proceeds, in
chapter 4, to consider the slanders against Asterius, the Great
Eusebius, Paulinus, Origen, Narcissus and "the other Eusebius".

Then comes the second book, the four chapters of which are
devoted to an exposure of Marcellus's blasphemies against the Son
of God. It is in the opening lines of this book that Conybeare

"ZNTW: The Authorship of the Contra Marcellum, n. 1, p. 250.

12 ZNTW, 1906 : Contra Marcellum, eine Schrift des Eusebius von Caesa-
rea, pp. 69-76.

13 MG, 24, 712 A. However this statement does not seem probable. Cf.
the note in Migne.

14 MG, 24, 713 A.
M MG, 24, 824 B.

detects an acquaintance on the part of the author with Marcellus's
letter to Julius. Conybeare renders these lines thus : " The time
has now come for us to bring to light this Galatian's infidelity,
and lay naked the kakodoxy, which has so long lurked in the
hypocrite's breast, by passing behind him a little and stripping
him of the mask which in the epistle he has assumed. Thus we
shall shew to all from his own very words what sort of qualifica-
tions he possessed to lead and guide the Church of Christ " (T^ TOV

faXdrov Trtcrrtv, 17 /cat juaAAov ryv aTTiOTtav rryv ets rov Ytov TOV Oeov, Katpos
77877 KaAeT, //.era rrjv eK0e<rij/ TWJ/ UTT' avrov SiafiXrjOevTwv, ets <ois dyayetv*
/cat TTJV xpovots /xaKpots evSo/x/uxTycracrav ra> avopl Ka.Ko8oiav, (Spa^y TrepteA-
OovTas TOV rf)<s eTritrroATys Trpoon^y/Aaros aTroyv/ttWocrai ' oeiat re rots Train 8ia
TT^S r&v avrov ^xovaJj/ //taprvpias otos TIS &v, TT^S Xptcrroi) Ka^yeiro EKKAry-

' " Q \ \ 16

o"ias aj/i/pw7ros KTA.).

In this translation Conybeare has omitted the words, which
intimately connect the opening lines of the second book with the
closing lines of the first. These words are : /ttera r^v e/dWti/ rw VTT'
avrov 8w./3\r)6evr<jw " after our exposure of his slanders ". More-
over he has translated " the hypocrite's breast " where the text has
merely rw av8pi. Then the phrase, /?paxv 7r e pteA.^ovras TOV r^s eVwr-
ToX-fjs 7rpoo^(77,jU,aTos a.7royuju,vi)o-at, he has rendered: "by passing be-
hind him a little and stripping him of the mask, which in the
epistle he has assumed". A better translation would have been:
" and by a brief paraphrase to strip it of its mask (?) in the
letter" . . .

Upoo-xrj/Mt may mean a screen, mask, disguise; it may also mean
ornament, outward show, outward pomp, outward appearance.
Eetaining the meaning of 'mask' (altho this hardly seems correct,
as will appear later), we can render the passage with more justice
to the original, thus: "After our exposure of his slanders, it is
now time for us to bring to light this Galatian's faith, or rather
lack of faith in the Son of G-od, and by a brief paraphrase to strip
the erroneous opinion, which has lurked within the man for a long
time, of its mask (?) in the letter, and to show by his own very
words what sort of qualifications he possessed to lead and guide
the Church of Christ".

Conybeare in his translation has stressed Marcellus's hypocrisy
to a degree which is not warranted by the text. The only words
in the text which bespeak hypocrisy are: Kat rrjv xp v ^

L. c. n. 6, p. 255.

rw avBpl /ca/<a8oiav, "the erroneous opinion, or kako-
doxy, which for a long time has lurked within the man " ; and
possibly also the word vpoaxnpa* (mask?). Coupling this hypo-
crisy with the eTrton-oA??, Conybeare asserts that we have a clear
reference to Marcellus's letter to Julius in 340.

This statement, however, does not bear investigation. For, in
the fourth chapter of the same second book, the author tells us:
" It is necessary to soothe the suspicion of our brethren, by clearly
demonstrating the lack of faith in the Son of God, which has
lurked within him for a long 'time, but which now has been con-
vincingly established by his own writing". This writing, we are
further told, Marcellus presented to the emperor Constantine; but
he turned it over to the synod at Constantinople, where it was
condemned in 336.

Here again Conybeare faultily translates the original. He ren-
ders it: "we must heal away the suspicion of our brethren by
clearly demonstrating the want of a belief in the Son of God,
which so long had lurked in him, and of which I have now con-
victed him out of his own loolc'". 17 This is not at all the sense of

the Greek. The text runs : Xp^ yap aTrotfepaTrevo-ai TYJV TWV fi/Jt,Tep<av dSeA-
<f>(av virovoiav, Bia rov (fravepav KaTacrTrjcrai ryv /xaKpoTs jixev xpovois 6ju,<j!>a)X-
etxracrav 18 aura) eis rov Yiov TOV 6e.ov cwrMrTiav, wvl Se eXrjXeyfjievrjv 8ia

OLVTOV

is the perf. part. pass, of lXeyx< and refers to
; the lack of faith, which has lurked within him for a long
time, has finally (vwi) been brought to light and convincingly
established (eA-qAey/xeV^v) by his own writing. We must bear in
mind that it is Marcellus' s own writing, and not the author of the
Contra Marcellum, that has brought Marcellus's kakodoxy to light.
Consequently, the long period in which Marcellus cradled his
infidelity within his breast, must be understood as the period pre-
vious to his condemnation at Constantinople in 336. Consequently,
too, the letter (emo-ToA??) in the opening chapter of book 2, cannot
refer to Marcellus's letter of 340 ; but it is the same auyypa/jijua,
ypatfi) and -ypa/x/wi of which the author speaks in other places.
This last statement will become more evident, if we study the
opening lines of book 2 in relation to book 1.

17 L. c. VIII, p. 256.

M Thus in the edition of E. Klostermann ; Migne's e^aXe^xrafJisy is mean-
ingless, and evidently a mistake.

In 1, 1 the author states that he is refuting the only treatise
which Marcellus ever wrote. This treatise is composed of slanders
against holy men and of 'blasphemies against the Son of God. He
intends to refute these slanders and blasphemies with Marcellus' s
own ivords. In 1, 4 he takes up the .slanders against Asterius and
the others. Then at the end of 1, 4 he clearly introduces the
second part of his program with the words: "We hasten on to
unveil the strange language of Marcellus concerning the Son of
God, in order that all might know what he thinks of the Son of
God .

These are the last words of book 1. On them follow imme-
diately the words of book 2 : ff After our exposure of his slanders,
it is now time for us to bring to light this Galatian's faith, or
rather lack of faith in the Son of God, and by a brief paraphrase
strip the erroneous opinion, which has lurked within the man for a
long time, of its mask (?) in the letter, and to show l)y his own
very words what sort of qualifications he possessed to lead and
guide the Church of Christ".

If we read these words in the light of book 1, the only alterna-
tive left for us is that the iTriaroXr] here is the identical piece of
work, which in other places the author calls avypanjM,, ypa^r) and
ypdpiw,. The fact that such a lengthy treatise as that of Mar-
cellus could have been called a letter, need not surprise us. In
the fourth chapter of book 2 we are told, that Marcellus himself
presented his book to Constantine, in the hope that he would
approve of it on account of the flattery and the many encomiums
of the emperor, which it contained. Hence either the book was
written in the form of a letter to Constantine, as Loeschcke
thinks, 19 or it was prefixed by a dedicatory epistle to the emperor,
as Th. Zahn prefers. 19 We have similar lengthy treatises in the
shape of letters; as for instance, St. Athanasius's work: De
Synodis, which is called Epistola De Synodis Arimini in Italia
etc.; also his four Epistolae ad Serapionem, and especially his
history of the Arians, which is prefixed by an Epistola ad
Monachos.

Since the emo-ToA}) is evidently identical with the crvyypafjLfM, it
seems hardly plausible that the irpocrx^fM Imo-ToXijs should mean
the 'mask of the letter 7 . This would contradict the statement
in 2, 4 that Marcellus's kakodoxy is established ~by his own book.

ZNTW, 1906, p. 72 sq.

It was not Marcellus' s design in his book to l mask ' his doctrines,
but to propagate them against Asterius and his friends. Therefore
' outward appearance ', or ' outward pomp ' would, fit in better
with the context; and the phrase would then read: "and by a
brief paraphrase to strip the erroneous opinion., which for a long
time has lurked within the man, of its outward pomp in the letter ".

But Conybeare has another argument. In 2, 4 the author says
that he was induced to compose this treatise, in order to uphold
the decisions of the synod of Constantinople in 336, against those
persons who thought that Marcellus had been treated unjustly.
But, he says, it was not necessary before 340, to come forward and
defend the decisions of the synod ; because it was only in the winter
of 340, that Julius convened a counter-synod at Eome to repeal
the decision of 336, by acquitting Marcellus 1 of heresy and admitting
him to communion. This is the more evident, he continues, be-
cause after 336 Marcellus' s cause in the east was dead; and there
was no need of refuting him until the Pope took up his cause. 20

Let us first of all examine the passage in question. I shall give
it in full as it is . important in deciding the time, in which the
Contra Marcellum was written. It runs thus: "It was but
reasonable that these doctrines should move the truly religious and
thrice blessed emperor against the man, even tho he flattered him
in countless ways, and had inserted many encomiums on him in
his treatise. These doctrines, too, forced the sacred synod, which
gathered in the imperial city from various provinces, from Pontus
and Cappodocia, Asia and Phrygia and Bithynia, Thrace and the
regions beyond, to brand the man, even against its own will, by the
document drawn up against him. These doctrines have compelled
us, also, to undertake this present treatise, that on the one hand
we might uphold the decisions of the sacred synod, and on the
other that we might obey our fellow-ministrants, who ordered us

to take the work in hand (Tavra Kal ^/xas eVi Ty}v /*era xetpa l^raa-iv
tlv KaTrjvdyKafrfv, ofJiov 8e rot? ooa(nv rfj ayta cruj/oSa) 7rapiora/Aevous,
v /cat rots crv\\f.iTovpyoi<s 7rpocrraao"t TOVTO Trpa^ai TO IKCLVOV 7rotou/u,ej/ous ) .

And I think it especially needful that this document be pub-
lished, for the sake of those persons who think that the (man has

been dealt with linjlistty. (MaAto-ra 8e pot. avayKalov r)yovfj,ai yeyev-
TO ypa/A/xa Sia rows -ffiiK-ijo-Qai TOV avSpa vevo/xtKoras) . For it

20 L. c. nn. viii, is, pp. 256-256.

is necessary to soothe the suspicion of our forethern by clearly
demonstrating the want of faith in the Son of God, which has
lurked within him for a long time, but which now has been con-
vincingly established by his own writing.

At nobody's suggestion, but of his own accord, he took this
writing and presented it to the emperor, with the request that he
should peruse its contents, hoping, too, perhaps, that he might
enjoy the emperor's protection on account of his encomiums, where-
as the bishops whom he had slandered might be punished. But
the result was not according to his hopes. For God was the judge
in this affair; and Christ Jesus himself, who has been despised
by the writer, and who takes in at a glance the secrets of this man's
heart, has brought it about that he became his own accuser and
prosecutor, even tho there was no one to egg him on. Accordingly
when he approached the emperor, pluming himself on his writing,
the emperor referred the decision as to its contents to the synod.
But the sacred synod of 'God rejected it; and rightly, since he
professes impious beliefs in the origin and the end of the Son
of God ".

'Conybeare here again joins the deception, spoken of in the pas-
sage, to the suspicion of the brethern, who sided with Marcellus,
or at least favored him, and refers both to the letter and the Koman
synod of 340. But he again oversteps the mark, and draws infer-
ences not warranted by the text. Marcellus's infidelity which has
skulked in secret for so long a time, has been brought to light by
his own book; hence the deception of which the author speaks,
must be understood to refer to a time previous to the year 336.

Moreover, it is untrue to say that Marcellus's cause was dead
in the east after 336, and that consequently " the brethern who
thought that he had been treated unjustly " must refer to Marcel-
lus's sympathisers of the west in the year 340. This statement
is refuted by the text itself, viz : " These doctrines, too, forced the
synod, even against its will,, to brand the man by the document

drawn up against him " (Tavra Se Kal TT/K ayiav orvvoSov crrrfXireveiv
TOV aj/Spa, :Sta rr/s /car' avrov TpacfiTJs, Kal py 0eAowav, ee/?iaeTO ) . If

therefore, the synod of Constantinople condemned Marcellus un-
willingly, we are certainly justified in concluding that there was a
party at the synod in his favor, who opposed his condemnation
as unjust, and who continued their sympathy for him later.

This view is confirmed by Sozomenus Hist. Eccles. 2, 33 (MG
67 1029 A-C). Concerning the action of the bishops at Constan-

5 1 '

tinople in 336, he has this to say: "The bishops wrote to the
Churches of Galatia, enjoining that the book of Marcellus should
be sought out and destroyed, and that as many as they found with
similar views, they should convert. And they indicated that on
account of the length of Marcellus's treatise, they could not sub-
join the entire book; but they inserted some excerpts in their
letter to prove that he really held these doctrines. For it was
being said among some, that Marcellus had proposed these things
tentatively, whereas the Eusebians had slandered him even to the
emperor as if he had asserted them positively ". ('EAeyero <5e irpos

TLVfav, ravra o>s ej/ ^rr/cm eiprjcrOai Map/ceAAw, Kat a>s w/AoAo-y^juera Sia-
/?e/?A-J/cr$ae /cat aurw TO! /JacrtAet Trapa rwv af*.<f)l TOV T&vae/3iov) .

If we need any more proof, we might quote the letter of Pope
Julius, written 3 -10 to Danius, Flacillus and the other bishops of
Antioch. 21 In this letter the Pope inveighs against the bishops for
receiving the Aria,ns in their midst, whose heresy had been con-
demned by the bishops of the entire universe ; whereas they refused
communion to Athanasius and Marcellus, who have many on their
side who defend them ~by word and writing ('A^amo-tos Se /cat

Ma/3KeAAo9, ol e7rt<TK07rot, TrAetovas C'XODOT, TOUS ()7re/3 eavruiv Aeyovras Kat

ypd<fiovTa<s) . It does not necessarily follow that these friends of
Marcellus were in the east; but it is at least probable, since the
Pope is writing to the bishops of Antioch.

Moreover, from Athanasius Hist. Arianorum, 8 (MG- 25 704 B),
we know that after the death of Constantine, the three brothers
Constantine, Constantius and Constans allowed the exiled bishops
to return to their fatherland and their diocese. Among these was
Marcellus. The edition of Migne places this decree in the year
338. Loofs 22 thinks it was issued in 337. Th. Zahn 22 appears
to think that Marcellus was at this time formally reinstated in
his diocese ; but this is denied by Loofs, who thinks that Marcellus
was allowed to return without being reinstated.

At any rate, Marcellus's return gave rise to tumultuous up-
risings in Ancyra, for which each party blamed the other. These
uprisings are mentioned in the letter of Pope Julius quoted by
Athanasius Apol. Contra Arian. 33 ('MG- 25 304 B) . In this letter
the Pope says that he was informed of these disorders by certain
persons, and that their testimony was corroborated by Marcellus.

21 Athanasius Apol. contra Arianos, n. 23, MG, 25, 288 A.

22 Loofs, Art. Marcellus von Ancyra in Realencyclopadie fur Prot, Theol.
u. Kirche 3 , 1903, p. 262.

There is an evidently exaggerated account of the same disorders by
Marcellu-s's enemies in the decree of the pseudo-synod of Sardica
held at Philippopolis in 347 (?) (Hilary, Fragmentum III n. 9
ML 10 665).

This pseudo-synod, moreover, in reference to. the synod at Con-
stantinople in 336, says, according to Hilary: "quique increpantes
ilium (i. e. Marcellum) et exprobantes, necnon charitatis affectu
postulantes multo tempore, nee quidquam profieiebant. Nam post
unam et secundam multasque correptiones cum nihil proficere pot-
uissent (perdurabat enim et contradicebat rectae fidei, et conten-
tione maligna Ecclesiae catholicae resistebat) ; exinde ilium omnes
horrere ac vitare coeperunt: et videntes quoniam subversus est a
peccato, et est a seonetipso damnatus, actis eum ecclesiasticis dam-
naverunt, ne ulterius oves Christi pestiferis contactibus magis mac-
ularet ", 23

It certainly does not seem from this passage that Marcellus's
cause was dead in the east after 336; for only after a long time,
and only after a first, and a second, and many reproofs did they
finally turn away from him. The years 337-340, as Loofs says, 24
are a dark, uncertain period, still we know enough of that period
to feel sure that Marcellus' s cause in the east at that time was not
dead. It was very much alive just between 337 and 339, the time
during which Eusebius composed his work, to uphold the decision
of the synod against the brethern who thought that Marcellus had
been treated unjustly ; for it was during this period that Marcellus
returned from exile and occasioned the tumults between the con-
tending factions in the Church of Galatia.

These are Conybeare's main arguments. We shall now briefly
consider some of his objections, which he calls " equally decisive "
and "equally fatal". They are four in number; none of them,
however, can be said to carry any weight, excepting perhaps the last.

He finds his first and "equally decisive" objection in the words
of the Contra Marcellum 1, 4 (MG 24 753) : "Thereupon pro-
ceeding in his work, he calumniates not only Asterius but also the
Great Eusebius, of whose episcopal, jurisdiction many and cele-
brated provinces and cities boasted" (/AeTeTrotr^ow). The aorist
, he says, shows that the Great Eusebius (scil. of ISTico-

23 Hilary, 1. c. n. 3, ML, 10, 061.

21 Article Arianismus in Realencyclopadie fur Prot. Theol. u. Kirche 3 ,
1903, p. 23.

media) was already dead when the Contra Marcellum was com-
posed. Had he been alive, the perfect juteraTroi^vTat should have been
used. Hence the book was written after the death of Eusebius of
Nicomedia ( 341-342 ). 25

It certainly is surprising that a man of Conybeare's linguistic
accomplishments should forget that a past action may be viewed
as a cold, buried fact, independent of any existing circumstances,
in which case the aorist is in place, or that the very same action
may be considered in its relations to the present, in which case the
perfect should be used. Eusebius Pamphili in speaking of the
residence of the G-reat Eusebius in various cities, chose the first
course and used the aorist. We certainly cannot quarrel with him
for his psychology.

An example from classical literature will make this plain.
Thucydides opens up his history of the Peloponnesian War with
the sentence : ou/cvStS^? 'AOyvalos vve.ypaij; rov TroXe/jiov TWV IleAoTrov-
npiW KOL 'A6r)vai<v. He is just for the first time bringing his
work to the notice of the public; and since this is the first line
in his book, inasfar as the public is concerned, his history has not
yet been written: yet inasfar as he is concerned, that history was
an accomplished fact, which had caused him many a sleepless night
in the past. But, to borrow Conybeare's method of argumentation,
Thucydides had already been dead two or three years when he
wrote those words !

Conybeare's second " equally fatal objection " considers the per-
sons who are defended by the author of the Contra. Marcellum.
Eusebius of Caesarea could never have given his rival and name-
sake of Nicomedia the title of Great. He ignores him completely
in his other works, noticeably in his De Vita Constantini. 26 The
same must, moreover, be said of Asterius, whom Eusebius in his
Commentary on the Psalms comtemptuously calls 6 'A/aeiaws. 27

First of all Conybeare does not prove that Eusebius of Nicomedia
was the rival of Eusebius Pamphili. The very opposite appears
from the History of Theodoret. In his Hist. Eccles. 1, 5, Theo-
doret sets forth a letter which Arius wrote to Eusebius of Nico-
media after the council of Mce. In that letter Arius associates
Eusebius Pamphili with his party, and calls him the brother of

25 ZNW, 1905, n. x, p. 258.
28 ZNTW, 1905, 259, n. xi.
37 ZN'TW, 1905, 261, n. xiv.

Eusebius of Mcomedia (6 d8eA<o<? o-ou MG- 82 912 A). In the
very next chapter Theodoret cites a letter of Eusebius of Mcomedia
to Paulinus of Tyre, in which he upbraids Paulinus for his slug-
gishness in propagating the Arian doctrine. He sets up Eusebius
Pamphili (whom he calls my Lord Eusebius TOV SecnroTov pov
JZiHrefiiov) as a model for imitation, since his zeal for the Arian
cause is well known. 28 Hence the two Eusebii could hardly be
called rivals.

Moreover, both Eusebii were present at the synod of Tyre 335,
which condemned Athanasius and at which Eusebius Pamphili
presided; 29 both were present at the synod of Jerusalem in the
same year, in which steps were taken against Marcellus, since he
had embittered the Eusebian party by his defense of Athanasius ; 30
both were present at the synod of Constantinople 335, at which
Athanasius was condemned anew, and to which only the elite of
the Arian party were sent; 31 both, finally, were present at the
synod in the same city 336, which, under the presidency of Euse-
bius of Mcomedia, 32 condemned Marcellus and ordered Eusebius
Pamphili to refute Marcellus's work. 33 Therefore, since Eusebius
Pamphili was at least Arian in sympathy, why could he not have
defended Eusebius of Mcomedia, one of Arius's staunchest friends ?
Why, too, could he not have defended Asterius (d. 330?) who had
written in defense of Arius ? 34

Eusebius's silence in the De Vita Constantini concerning his
namesake of Mcomedia and of Asterius, as G-. Loeschske remarks, 315
is in keeping with the character of that writing, which is a pan-
egyric on Constantino's life and work, and which therefore mini-
mises the disorders consequent on the rise of Arianism, during
Constantino's reign.

Furthermore, in his Commentary on the Psalms, as G-. Loeschcke
points out, 36 Eusebius does not contemptuously call Asterius 6

28 MG, 82, 913 A-B.

39 Hefele Conciliengescliichte I, 461 sqq. 1>S73.

80 Ibidem I, 470 sq.

31 Ibidem I, 471 sq.

32 Montacutius MO, 24, 821 note 1.

33 Hefele, 1. c. I, 473.

54 Bardenhewer-Shahan, Patrology, 1908, Freiburg im Breisgau and St.
Louis, Mo., p. 239.

33 ZNTW, 1906, p. 74 sq.
30 ZOSTTW, 1906, p. 74 sq.

,56

The section in question/ 7 which commences : " Asterius
the Arian thus explained the Psalm " , is an appendix which follows
a detailed exposition of the Psalm by Eusebius. As Montfau.com
indicates, 38 this appendix was added by an amanuensis in codex
Tauriensis, and is not found in any other manuscript.

Finally, that the title Great was most probably given to Eusebius
of Nicomedia only after his death, is something which Conybeare
should prove, and not assert.

We come to the third objection, of which Conybeare says: "A
better proof that he was not the author of the work before us,
cannot be conceived". This objection is focused on the word
which is used for the city of Constantinople. In Contra Marcel-
lum 2, 4 (MG- 24, 821 D), Constantinople is called 17 fiacriXua)
TroAis. If Eusebius wrote the work, it must have been between the
years 337 and 339. Now, in a contemporary work of that period,
De Vita Constantini, the emperor himself calls Constantinople

TIJV iTTtovvfjiov TroXw', Eusebius Calls it r) /JacriAecos avrov CTTCOVDJUOS TrdAt-j,

or simply rr)v l^ww^ov iroXw (six times), rrjv avrov iroXiv (twice),
y TroAis (once). On the other hand he calls Borne % /?cnAWa
(six times), 17 /Jao-iAis TroAts (thrice), r/ Tto/xatW TroAis (once),
Ti-oAis (thrice). Had Eusebius been the author of the
Contra Marcellum, he could only have meant Eome by -fj /foo-iAiKr/
TroAt?. 38

In answer we can only repeat the words of G. Loeschcke. 40 The
variant designations of Constantinople in the De Vita and the
Contra Marcellum, would onlv then furnish sufficient ground to

^ \j (-J

doubt the authenticity of the latter work, if Constantinople in the
former work were always referred to as ?/ e7reW//,o<? iroXis, and in
the latter as 17 fiaaiXua] TroAis. But as a matter of fact, Constanti-
nople is mentioned only once in the Contra Marcellum; hence we
cannot speak of a different terminology.

Moreover, the designation for Constantinople y/ /fomAe'w? avrov
eTroW/Aos TroAis, which is used in the De Vita, is not dissociated in
thought from the 77 /?ao-tAu<ry iroXis of the Contra Marcellum. Then,
in the preceding sentence of the Contra Marcellum,, Eusebius refers
to Constantine twice merely as [3acriXf.v<s : the emperor; why could

"Oomm. in Ps. IV, MG, 23, 112 sq.
38 MG ad loc. note 1.
3tt ZNTW, 1905, p. 260, n. xii.
< ZNTW, 1906, p. 74.

he not in the next sentence refer to Constantinople as the imperial
city? Finally., as Erich Klostermann remarks, 41 if in Conybeare's
supposition, Eusebius of Emesa a few years later could have used
77 /?ao-(AiK77 TroAts of Constantinople, there is no reason why Eusebius
Pamphili could not have done so likewise.

Conybeare's fourth objection merits a little more attention, as A.
Harnack himself found, it surprising, altho he admits that it is
not a sufficient reason to discard Eusebius's authorship. 42 The
objection is: "If Eusebius Pamphili wrote the book, then we
have the remarkable literary phenomenon of a writer who again
and again refers to himself in the first person at the beginning of
a context, and in the third person at the end of the same ". 43

To emphasize this objection, let us take an instance of it in
Contra Marcellum 1, 4, an instance which favors Conybeare's
position most. Writing against Marcellus the author of the book
says : " First of all I shall adduce those arguments (^o-w Se irp&ra)
by which he attempts to refute treatises composed in accordance
with true, ecclesiastical spirit; in which, too, he calumniates the
writers and sustains a wellnigh universal fight against them all.
For he contradicts Asterius . . . then turns against the Great
Eusebius . . . and Paulinus. Then leaving off him, he wages war
against Origen ... ; he then arrays himself against Narcissus
and persecutes " the other Euselius" (KOL rov 'Irepov Ewe/?tov SICOKCI
(MG 24 752 A). Similar usage of the third person for Eusebius
Pamphili may be found in the same chapter 765 C; 768 A (twice)
and C; 769 A and B; 772 B; 773 C.

In answer to this objection let us observe first of all with A.
Harnack 44 and G-. Loeschcke, 45 that these references to Eusebius
occur in the fourth chapter of book 1, in a context, accordingly,
in which the author is refuting the slanders of Marcellus against
a group of well-known persons, among whom was the author him-
self. Consequently it was fitting, that in this connexion, he should
treat his own defense as objectively as possible.

That such a procedure is not peculiar to Eusebius, but is a com-

ti Griechische Christliche Schriftsteller Eusebius' Werke, IV. Bd. 1906,
p. xiv.

43 Die Chronologic d. Altchrtl. Literat. bis Eusebius II, 2, 1904, p. 545.
43 ZNTW, 1905, nn. xv and xvi, pp. 262-264.
41 L. c. p. 545.

, 1906, p. 75.

mon human idiosyncrasy (if we may use that word), is well attested
by literary history. It should cause no special difficulty to anyone
who can boast of at least a 'bowing acquaintance with the classics.
P. H. Chase in the JThSt 1905 (p. 514 sq.) merely indicates a
few examples of the same method in Thucydides and in Xenophon.
We shall dwell on the first a little at length, since it affords a
perfect parallel to the case in point.

Thucydides commences the history of the Peloponnesian War in
the following strain: Thucydides, an Athenian, wrote (ovjcuSiSqs
'Adrjvalos ^we-ypaif/e] the history of the war between the Pelopon-
nesians and the Athenians, beginning at the moment that it broke
out, and believing that it would he a great war and more worthy
of relation than any that had preceded it. This belief was not
without its grounds. The preparations of both the combatants
were in every department in the last state of perfection; and he
could see (op&v) the rest of the Hellenic race taking sides in the
quarrel, those who delayed doing so at once, having it in con-
templation. Indeed this was the greatest movement yet known in
history, not only of the Hellenes, but of a large portion of the
barbarian world, and so to speak, of entire mankind. For though
the events of remote antiquity, and even those that more imme-
diately precede the war, could not from lapse of time be clearly
ascertained, yet according to the evidences, which an enquiry car-
ried on as far back as possible leads me to trust, I judge that up
to this time there was nothing on a great scale in war or in other
matters " (CK Se rcKjU^ptW S>v ?rt paKpoTarov VKOITOVVTI, /xoi Trto-revcrat
ov /neyaAa vo/ua> yeve'cr&u OTJTC Kara TOIIS 7roAe//,ovs oijre es

v v\ \ \ 46

TO. aAAaJ.

Here we find Thucydides speaking of himself in the third person
and in the first person in the very same context. From here on
he continues in the first person; but in the fourth book, 104-107,
in describing the part that he took in the war, he again reverts to
the third person. To wit : "... Eucles, the general . . . sent
to the other commander in Thrace, Thucydides , son of Olorus, the
author of this history ... to tell him to come to their relief. On
receipt of this message, he at once set sail. . . Meanwhile Brasides

" 6 The text consulted is that of H. Stuart Jones, Thucydides Historiae,
in Scriptorum Classicorum Bibliotheca Oxoniensis 1>898. Translation by
Eichard Crawley: Thucydides Peloponnesian War in Everyman's Library
1914, London, The translation has been slightly altered to emphasize the
change of persons in Greek.

. . . learning that Thucydides possessed the right of working the
gold mines in that part of Thrace . . . hastened to gain the town
. . . Late in the same day, Thucydides and his ships entered the
harbon of Eion". . .

No one will deny the perfect parallelism between the case of
Eusebius and that of Thucydides. The same phenomenon appears
in Xenophon's Anabasis. Every college student knows how exas-
peratingly objective Xenophon's style is. Yet we find a few refer-
ences in it in the first person. Thus in 1, 2 we read : " Cyrus at
the head of the force, which I have mentioned, (Kvpos Se e'x<ov ov
etprjKa} commenced his journey from Sardis ". Again 2, 3 : " What
I just now stated, ("O Se <Sr/ eypa^a) that the king was alarmed at
the approach of the Greeks, became evident by what followed ".

But in 3, 1 in introducing himself as the leader of the Greeks,
Xenophon consistently adopts the third person thruout, so much
so that we instinctively wonder whether perhaps someone else had
not written the book. The text runs : " There was in the army a
certain Xenophon, an Athenian, ( 7 Hv 81 <j iv ry orpcma Hei>o<a>j/
'AOyvaios) who accompanied it neither in the character of general,
nor captain nor common soldier; but it had happened that
Proxenus, an old guest-friend of his, had sent for him (avrov
/tereTre/x^aro) giving him a promise, that if he came (Wto-xvetro 8e
avra>, et e'A0oi) he would recommend him (avrbv) to the friendship
of Cyrus, whom he considered, he said, as a greater object of regard
than his own country. Xenophon on reading the letter" etc. 47

This same characteristic distinguishes Cesar's book on the Gallic
War, in which Cesar is spoken of thruout in the third person.
He uses the first person occasionally in clauses of recapitulation,
even where in the same context he speaks of himself in the third.
For example the opening lines of book 2 are : " Cum esset Caesar
in citeriore Gallia, ita uti supra demonstravimus, crebri ad eum
rumores adferebantur etc.". 48

If we need any more testimony to show the futility of Cony-
beare's objection, we might appeal to the Historia Arianorum
written by Athanasius, a contemporary of Eusebius. This treatise
is prefixed by an Epistola ad Monachos, in which Athanasius refers
to himself constantly in the first person. In the history itself,

47 Text: Goodwin and White, New York, 1894. Translation: J. S. Wat-
son, in the Student's Literal Translations, New York, 1920.

48 Text: Allen and Greenough, New Caesar with Vocabulary, London,
New York, 1898.

however, he generally refers to himself in the third person. He
uses the first person also, sometimes in the same context in which
the third person had been used. We shall consider one example.

Number 23 of his history (MG 25 717 B-C) reads: "But the
emperor Constantius, whose conscience was slightly pricked, entered
into himself, and since ha suspected from what had happened to
Euphrates, that the attacks against the others were of a similar
nature, he immediately ordered that the priests and deacons, who
had been exiled from Alexandria into Armenia, should be freed.
And he wrote a public letter to Alexandria forbidding the clergy
and men of Athanasius to be persecuted (/wj/cert SwKeaOai rovs juera
'AOavao-tov /cA^pi/covs re /cat Aaovs). Then about ten months later,
when Gregory was dead, he summoned Athanasius with all honor,
and wrote him friendly letters not once, nor twice, but three times,
urging him to take courage and come (^raTri^Trerai /cat 'AOavdmov

ju,era 7racr?ys TI/X^S, ow^ a-ira^, <ru8e 8evrepov, aAAa /cat rpirov -ypdij/as avrtjj

/zev c/>tAt/ca . . .). He sent besides a priest and a deacon, that he
might come with more confidence (tV ert /uaAAov Oappw eVave'Aflot) ,
For he thought that out of fear of what had happened, I should
not care to return. He also wrote to his brother, Constans, in order
that he, too, might urge me to return ('Evo/ue yap &a TOV c/>o/8ov r&v

TrpOTepov yei/o/zej/wv oAtytopetv jae Trept rr/v CTraVo'Sov . . . iva /cat avros

eiraveXQdv /we Trporpe'^T/rat) . For he avowed that for a whole year he
had been waiting for Athanasius, and could not allow any innova-
tion to take place, or any appointment to be made, since he was
keeping the churches for Athanasius the bishop " (Aie/3e/3aioi)To yap

tviavrov oAov e/cSeyeor&u TOV *A0avacriov . . . ctaAaTTtov 'A$ava<ri'a> T<U 7rr-

KOTTO)

Even at the risk of tediousness, let us mention one more example
of a modern author, which G. Loeschcke 49 takes from Krum-
bacher's work, Kultur der Gegenwart I, 8 p. 285 : " Eine Gesamt-
ausgabe (namlich der Lieder des Eomanos) wird seit 20 Jahren
vorbereitet von K. Krumbacher " , and five lines later : " die tiber-
setzung der ersten Strophe ist von mir, die der zweiten von J. L.
Jacobi ".

In view of this array of evidence, we cannot see how it is fe a liter-
ary impossibility that the erepos Evtre'/Jtog should be the Eusebius
who wrote the Elenchi"; 50 nor can we gratify Conj^beare's wish:
"for the sake of patristic scholarship, I hope that no one hence-

48 ZNTW, 1906, p. 75. co ZNTW, 1903, p. 333.

forth will be so hardy as to attribute this work to the historian of
Caesarea ". G1 In view of this utterance it strikes one as a bit of
droll humor that Erich Klostermann, in his edition of the Contra
Marcellum 1906,, winds up his views on Conybeare's assertions
with the remark: "Die Kiihnheit dieser ganzen Kritik wird es
gerechtfertigt erscheinen lassen wenn ich auf den Tafel der Aus-
gabe noch ohne Fragezeichen gesetzt habe: Eusebius' Werke iv.
Band". 52

2. The Letter to Caesarea.

Let us now take up the remaining work of Eusebius, in which
the traditional text of Mt. 28, 19 is used, the Letter which he
wrote to his Church in Caesarea after the Council of Nice. In
speaking of this document in his article of 1901, 53 Conybeare says :
" There is hardly reason to suspect an interpolation " ; of course
not, since he thought that he could explain its presence by the
Nicene influence. But two years later 54 he states without proof,
that the trinitarian passage in the letter had been interpolated : it
had been foisted into the text from the aAA^ eK0ri<; TriWews of the
Council of Antioch 341 ; of course, since the Council of Nice had
turned out to be a rather weak alibi. In his article of 1905/' 5
then, he tries to establish this hypothesis at some length.

He states here that the creed of Asterius to which Marcellus
objects, 56 is nearly identical with the second creed put forth at the
Arian Council of Antioch 341. Both creeds after a profession of
faith in God the Father, and the 'Son the only begotten God, and
the Holy Ghost, have the addition: the leather truly Father, the
Son truly Son, the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost. Over and above
this, the creed of Antioch after the profession of faith in the
Trinity, and before the clause: the Father truly Father etc. adds
the words : as also our Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples
saying: Going make disciples of all the nations, baptising them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.
These two clauses, which characterise the second symbol of the
Council of Antioch, are also found in the letter of Eusebius to
Caesarea.

B1 ZNTW, 1905, p. 264, n. xvii.

53 Griechische Ghristliche Schriftsteller, Leipzig, 1906, p. xvi.

63 ZNTW, p. 281. 53 ZNTW, pp. 251-254, nn. ii-v.

64 ZNTW, 1903, p. 333. M Contra Marcellum 1, 4, MG, 24, 752.

The creeds of Asterius and that of Antioch, Conybeare continues,
are Lucianic in content and spirit; and the words as also our
Lord Jesus Christ commanded his disciples, saying: Going mftlce
disciples etc.., were added to this creed for the first time at the
Council of Antioch. These words are very apposite in the Anti-
ochean creed; and, moreover, the clause, the Father truly Father
etc., fits in well both with the creed of Antioch and that of Asterius,
since they were a shibboleth, which the Arians used in order to
propagate their doctrines. But both clauses are out of place in
the creed of Eusebius; they were foisted into his text later on, to
make it appear that the Great Historian had favored the Arian
heresy.

Let us put the creeds side by side :

ASTERIUS BEFORE 330 57

1. He wrote that he be-
lieves in: Father God
Almighty.

2. And in his Son, the
only begotten God.

3. And in the Holy Ghost.

4. And that the Father
must be considered
truly Father, and the
'Son truly Son, and the
Holy Ghost likewise.

EUSEBIUS 325

1. We believe in one God
Father Almighty. . . .

2. And in one Lord Jesus
Christ, the Logos of
God, Light of Light,
Life of Life, only be-
gotten Son. . . .

3. And in one Holy Ghost.

4. Believing that each one
of these is and exists
Father truly Father,
and Son truly Son, and
Holy Ghost truly Holy
Ghost.

5. As also our Lord send-
ing liis disciples forth
to preach said: Going,
make disciples of all
the nations, baptising
them in the name of
the Father, and of the
Son, and of the Holy
Ghost.

ANTIOCH 341 G9

1. We believe ... in one
God Father Almighty.

2. And in one Lord Jesus
Christ, his Son, the
only begotten God . . .
God of God . . . Living
Logos. . . .

3. And in the Holy Ghost.

4. As also our Lord Je-
sus Christ commanded
his disciples, saying :
Going make disciples
of all the nations, bap-
tising them in the
name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost;

5. that is, of the Father
who is truly Father, of
the Son who is truly
Son, and of the Holy
Ghost, who is truly
Holy Ghost.

07 Contra Marcellum 1, 4, MG, 24, 752 B sq.

58 MG, 67, 69 C sq. = Socrates H. E. 1, 8; also MG, 20, 1537 B; both
texts are identical.

5U Athanasius de Synod. 23, MG, 26, 721 sq. ; also in Socrates H. E. 2,

Granting that the clauses in question had been foisted into the
creed of Eusebius, it does not appear why the Arian interpolator
should not have preserved the same order as in the creed of Antioch.
But let us observe first of all, that the Council of Antioch in 341
was not an Arian Council. Conybeare overreaches himself by such
an apodictic statement, which is refuted by the creeds of the
Council itself. The first creed proposed by the Council commences :
"We are not followers of Arius. For how could it be that since
we are bishops, we should be followers of a priest? Nor have we
accepted any other creed beyond that which has been handed down
from the beginning ". 60

This creed was later changed for the second, in which a certain
conciliatory spirit is evident; still it cannot be called unorthodox.
After the trinitarian citation from Matthew, the second creed con-
tinues : " these names are mentioned not idly or meaninglessly, but
as accurately signifying the proper hypostasis, order and glory of
those names, so that they are three in hypostasis, 61 but one in
harmony. . . . And if anyone teaches contrary to the sound and
orthodox faith of the Scriptures, saying that before the Son was
begotten there existed, or had existed, either time (xpwov), or
period (/cai/aov), or age (atwva), let him be anathema. And if
anyone calls the Son a creature, as one of the things created, or
produced, as one of the things produced, or a work, as one of the
things made, and does not profess his faith in each one of the
aforementioned names in order, as the divine Writings have handed
down, or if he teaches or preaches anything besides what we have
received, let him be anathema ", 62

An Arian Council could not have drawn up such a creed. It
cannot be denied, however, that the Eusebian party Avas strong at
the Council (Eusebius of Nicomedia, at this time of Constantinople,
died only after the Council) ; still they were not in the majority.
Eusebius of JSTicomedia had, indeed, been chiefly instrumental in
convening the Council, and had effected the renewed condemnation
of Athanasius. Still that does not make the Council as such Arian.
From our present knowledge we know that the Eusebian party

10, MG, 67, 201 sq. The text of Athanasius has been followed, since he is
more reliable than Socrates, who deviates from Athanasius in a few words.

60 Socrates H. E. 2, 10, MG, 67, 200 C.

61 Hypostasis here means 'persona'; cf. Hilary de Synodis nn. 31, 32,
ML, 10, 504.

M Athanasius de Synod. 23, MG, 26, 724.

were Arian in sympathy; yet it does not follow that they were so
considered by the orthodox bishops of the fourth century. As
Hef ele sizes up the situation, 63 at the Council of Nice the orthodox
party was on the extreme right; Arius and a few followers on the
extreme left; while the Eusebian party held the center, on the left
of which was Eusebius of Nicomedia, on the right Eusebius of
Caesarea. After the central party had signed the decrees of the
Nicene Council, they were looked upon as orthodox by the gen-
erality of the bishops. It is only in this way that we can explain
such a seeming paradox as that of the Council of Antioch 341, in
which many orthodox bishops of the east combined with the
Eusebian party in condemning Athanasius.

Moreover, altho we clearly know that Athanasius was orthodox
in his doctrines, it certainly does not follow that this was as evident
to the orthodox bishops of his time. Athanasius had associated
with Marcellus, who had been convicted of heresy; he had been
banished by Constantine, and even seems to have been suspected
for a time by Pope Julius. On this point see the miasterly treatise
of Hef ele, Conciliengeschichte I, 502-530.

Consequently, it cannot be said that the expression Father truly
Father etc., was an expression which the Council of Antioch used
in order to propagate Arian ideas. Neither could the expression
have been an "Arian shibboleth", for then the orthodox party
would never have permitted its insertion into the creed, and they
were in the majority !

Besides, we know that three or four years previously, Eusebius
Pamphili approved this expression in his work Contra Marcellum
(for surely we can hold that he is the author of that work!).
In the fourth chapter of the first book of that treatise, 64 after
Marcellus has cited the letter of Asterius in which he professes his
belief in the Father truly Father etc., Eusebius continues : " Thus
Marcellus writes against Asterius, not pleased with his utterance
that the Father must be truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and
the Holy Ghost likewise. Hence he proceeds to refute this clause
at very great length. For he wishes to say that Christ is a bare
word similar to a human word, and not the truly living and abiding
Son". If Eusebius approved this clause in 337-339, it is possible
that he used it in his creed of 325.

Conybeare's assertion that the clause is not apposite in Eusebius' s

03 L. c. I, 306, par. 32.
}, 24, 753 B.

creed, because in the second member of his creed he gives promi-
nence to the Word and not to the Son, is hardly worthy of considera-
tion. Eusebius in his creed indeed places the Logos of God imme-
diately after Jesus Christ; but he continues God of God, Light of
Light, Life of Life, Only Begotten Son. The creed of Antioch, too,
in its lengthy enumeration of the titles of Jesus Christ, does not
omit the Living Logos. Should the clause be apposite in the creed
of Antioch, because it mentions first the Son of God, and later the
Living Logos, and not apposite in the creed of Eusebius, because
he mentions first the Logos of God, and only later the only begotten
Son? With the best of wills it is hard to see the logic in Cony-
beare's reasoning. Even had Eusebius omitted the only begotten
Son entirely, why should the clause not fit into his creed, since it
clearly has the triple division of all ancient creeds : In one God the
Father . . . in one Jesus Christ . . . in one Holy Ghost, no
matter whether the second person be characterised as the Yios or as
the Aoyos?

Conybeare states furthermore, that when Eusebius of Nicomedia
read his creed with the Lucianic catchwords at the Council of Nice,
the assembly arose and tore his paper to pieces. The inference is
evident : had Eusebius Pamphilfs creed contained the same catch-
words, it would have fared no better.

Conybeare's source is Theodoret; but he could not have read his
source very carefully. Theodoret in Eccles. Hist. 1, 7 65 tells us
that when the writing of Eusebius of Nicomedia was read, all who
heard it were filled with great sorrow on account of the apostasy of
the man (7-779 iKTpoirfj^ eVeKa) ; and thereupon they tore tip his
writing. There is nothing said of any Lucianic additions. They
are supplied by Conybeare himself ; for was not the clause an Arian
shibboleth, and was not Eusebius of Nicomedia an Arian sym-
pathiser ?

Had he given more attention to his source, he would have dis-
covered that the offensive expressions were : TO e OVK OVTWV, TO

KTLapja KCU 7rot?7|wa rov YtoV, TO i]v TTOTC ore OVK rjV, on TpeTTTrjs ICTTL (jb

The JSTicene Fathers demanded of the Eusebians that they accept
the word O/AOOTJO-IOS ; for in this word, Theodoret says, all the pre-
vious discussion is summed up.

'That the clause the Father truly Father etc., was used by the
Arians, is true, ^at least we know that Asterius used it; that it

05 MG, 82, 921 AB.

was an Arian shibboleth, which "in the Nicene age conveyed the
doctrine that the three persons were three independent and differ-
ent substances " , is disproved by the very same second symbol of
the Council of Antioch 341. Hilary in commenting on this second
creed, says : 6 " First of -all we must bear in mind, that the Council
of Antioch convened not against the heresy, which dared to assert
that the Father and Son were of a different substance, but against
the heresy, which after the Council of Nice, belched forth the
doctrine that the three names are to be ascribed to the Father ''
(that is, not against Arianism, but against Sabellianism, revived
in the person of Marcellus of Ancyra) . Hilary continues : " There-
fore the assembled synod of holy men, in their desire to destroy
such impiety, which tried to excape the dogma (veritatem) of the
Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost expressed by the number
of names, and which subtracted the personality from each name,
thereby falsely joining the three nam.es> so that the Father alone
might have the name of the Holy Spirit and the Son; therefore
this holy synod said that there were three substances, meaning
three persons by substances, and not intending to separate the
substance of the Father and the Son by a difference of nature ".
The words of Hilary indicate that the Council of Antioch was
directed against Sabellianism, which claimed that Father, Son and
Holy Ghost were three different names for the same person. This
becomes clearer from the last sentence of the third creed- approved
at the same Council : " And whosoever sides with Marcellus of
Ancyra, or Sabellius, or Paul of Samosata, may he be anathema,
and all those who communicate with him". 67 Hence the expres-
sion the Father truly Father etc., at the Council of Antioch was
used to emphasize, as Hilary says, the distinction of persons against
Marcellus ; it was not .intended to be a shibboleth to propagate the
doctrine of " three independent and different substances " in God.

Let us come to Conybeare's second argument. In his letter to
Caesarea, Eusebius says that when the assembly heard his creed,
no one could find fault with it, and they accepted it " with a few
additions". Now, Eusebius in his letter mentions first the creed
which he proposed, and then the creed which the Nicene 'Fathers
adopted. But the Nicene creed contains neither the clause the
Father truly Father etc., nor the trinitarian citation from Mat-

00 De Synod. 32, ML, 10, 504.

67 Athanasius de Synod. 24, MG, 26, 725 A.

thew. Therefore, since, according to Eusebius's testimony, the
Nicene creed is the same as the creed which he proposed "with a
few additions " , the two clauses could not have been original parts
of Eusebius's creed.

A clever argument, indeed; but it loses its force completely as
soon .as we put the two creeds side by side and compare them. In
the following paradigm, the words in italics in the creed of
Eusebius have been 'omitted by the Council of Nice ; whereas those
italicised in the Nicene creed, were added over and above the creed
of Eusebius.

EUSEBIUS MG 20 1537 BCD

1. We believe in one God, Father
Almighty, the Creator of all the
things visible and invisible.

2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Logos of God, God of God,
Light of Light, Life of Life, only
begotten Son, first-torn of all
creation, begotten of the Father
before all ages, by whom all
things were made, who became
flesh on account of our salva-
tion, and lived among men (ev
Avdpdjirois jroKiTevffa/j.evov) , and
suffered, and arose the third day,
and ascended to the Father and
ivill come again in glory (TI&VTO.
iraKiv ev 86fi) to judge both liv-
ing and dead.

3. We believe also in one Holy
Ghost, believing that each one
of these is and exists, Father
truly Father, Son truly Son, and
Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as
also our Lord said when he sent
his disciples to preach: Going
maJce disciples of all the nations,
baptising them in the name of
the Father and the Son and the
Holy Ghost.

4. Concerning which we affirm that
thus we hold and believe, and
have thus held of old, and shall
stand by this faith until death,
anathematising every impious

NICENE CREED MG 20 1540 BC

1. We believe in one God, Father
Almighty, Creator of things
visible and invisible.

2. And in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, only begotten of
the Father, God of God, Light
of Light, true God of true God,
begotten not made, consubstan-
tial with the Father by whom
all things were made, both the
thi/ngs in heaven and those on
earth, who came down and be-
came flesh on account of us men
and our salvation, dwelt among
men (evavOpuTrriffavTa) suffered
and arose the third day, ascend-
ed into heaven, and ivill come
(epx^evos) to judge both living
and dead.

3. And in the Holy Ghost,

4. The Catholic Church anathema-
tises those who say that there was
a time when the Son of God did
not exist, or that he did not
exist before he was born, or thai

heresy. That we have always he was made from nothing, or

maintained this belief from our from some other hypostasis or

heart and soul, insofar as we nature, or tliat he ivas created,

Jmow ourselves, and now main- changed or altered,

tain and profess it in truth, we
call God the Almighty and our
Lord Jesus Christ to witness,

being able to show by arguments
and to convince you, that in
past times we have tlius believed
and taught.

We see from the paradigm that numbers 2, 3 and 4 were almost
entirely changed. In no. 2, eight of Eusebius's phrases were
omitted, and eleven substituted in their stead. Then no. 4 is
expunged entirely, and a new anti-Arian section inserted. Yet
Eusebius is snugly silent about these omissions, and is even hardy
enough 1 to maintain that his creed was accepted " with a few ad-
ditions " . It had been much nearer the truth to say that his creed
was hardly recognisable after the Nicene Fathers were thru with it.

Consequently, his neglect to mention the omission of the clause
the Father truly Father etc., and the trinitarian citation, is no
more a proof that these clauses were not original in his creed, than
is the similar silence a proof that the phrases the Logos of God,
Life of Life, First-lorn of all creation, before all ages, etc. were
not original. We should have a fine looking creed indeed, if we
discarded as spurious all the phrases which were omitted in the
Nicene symbol.

We can understand that the two clauses in question might have
met with opposition from the Nicene Fathers. On the extreme
right was Marcellus of Ancyra, who regarded the clause Father
truly Father etc., as a cloak of heresy. This is evidenced by the
words of the Contra Marcellum 1, 4 (MG- 24 753 A).

Marcellus is there quoted as saying against Asterius: "When,
however, not grasping the full import of the divine power, in a
rather human fashion, and by some sort of artificial speculation,
he calls the Father Father, and the Son Son, we cannot praise such
a speculation without danger. For the result is that thru this
speculation, the heresy which they have invented is increased, as,
I think, it will be easy to prove from his own words ".

Marcellus, therefore, who later was accused of Sabellianism, took
offense at these words. Possibly he might have opposed the ex-
pressions at the Council of Nice; possibly too, he might have been
supported in this by his friend Athanasius and the orthodox party

generally. However, all that we know is that the expressions, for
whatever reason, were omitted in the creed drawn up by the Nicene
Fathers.

That Eusebius should' have neglected to mention this omission,
need not surprise us. Thruout his letter he tries to minimise, to
the greatest degree possible, the opposition of the Ficene Council.
His letter bears the evident earmarks of a wary diplomacy, trying
to influence the home party into accepting the Nicene creed, and
trying, also, to right in their eyes, the stand which he had taken in
the matter. Therefore he mentions right at the beginning, that
the Nicene creed was the same as the one which he had proposed,
barring " a few additions ". These additions, he says later, con-
sisted mainly in the word 6//,oouo-tos, which the emperor himself
suggested should be inserted. This expression, he continues, con-
tained nothing unorthodox, and he himself had accepted it only
after long and mature deliberation.

This conciliatory spirit is especially evident in the last part of
the letter, where Eusebius speaks of the anathema affixed to the
creed. " We think ", he writes, " that the anathema which is
appended to the creed proposed by them, need not cause any worry ;
since it prohibits the use of unscriptural words, whence nearly all
the confusion and anarchv in the Church has arisen. Therefore

since none of the divinely inspired Writings make use of the ex-
pressions: e owe OI/TCOV, and rjv TTOTC ore OVK ty, and the other ex-
pressions mentioned, it did not seem well to use them in ordinary
speech or in teaching. We accordingly subscribed to this anathema,
since it seemed reasonable, and since we had never formerly been
in the habit of using those expressions. . . .

We have thought it necessary to send you these items, beloved,
in order clearly to demonstrate to you the conclusion of our inves-
tigation, which has induced us to yield ; and also to show you that
we resisted with good reason up to the last hour, as long as the
expressions proposed by the others offended us. But finally, since
we did not love strife, we accepted the terms. Neither did they
cause any trouble ; for when we candidly examined the meaning of
the words, we found that they coincided with our own, which we
had proposed in our own creed ".

In view of all this, we take pride in accepting Conybeare's state-
ment of 1901 with a strengthening qualification: there is no earthly
reason to suspect an interpolation. The trinitarian citation from

Matthew is an original part of Eusebius's creed; and from the
opening words of that creed we can infer that Eusebius had always
believed this passage to be an authentic part of the Gospel. His
words are: "As we have received from the bishops before us, and
in our first catechesis, and when we received baptism, and have
learned from the Divine Writings, and as we have believed and
taught during our priestly and our episcopal career, so now also
believing, we propose to you our faith, which is the following " .

In such a solemn profession of his faith, we cannot imagine that
the bishop of Caesarea, the disciple of Pamphilus, the greatest
scripture scholar of his age, would have cited the trinitarian pas-
sage as a part of the Gospel, were he convinced that it was a later
interpolation. Consequently, Eusebius realised that these words
were authentic, and he had been thus taught by the bishops before
him, and had been brought to this view by the writings in the
famous library at Caesarea, in which Pamphilus and Origen must
have sorted manuscripts, ante-dating our oldest uncials by 50-150
years.

But if this is so, why does Eusebius omit the baptismal com-
mand in 24 passages scattered over the vast range of his writings ?
Why, too, does he add in my name to Christ's farewell words, in
17 of these instances? We shall consider these two questions
separately.

CHAPTEE III.

THE OMISSION OF THE BAPTISMAL COMMAND.

E. Eiggenbach, 1 F. H. Chase, 2 and P. Feine 3 appeal to the
disciplina arcani as a very probable reason for the frequent omis-
sion of the baptismal command in the works of Eusebius. Altho
we know that the doctrine of the Trinity and the liturgical rites
of baptism were especially hidden from the uninitiated, still this
opinion does not seem tenable. We are glad to say that for once
we can accept Conybeare's stand on this point. 4 His most telling
reasons against the disciplina arcani, are: First, the abbreviated
forms are found in works which are intended for the initiated ; 5
secondly, in the view of his opponents (he has Eiggenbach in
mind), the received text occurs in the Syriac Theophany (and we
may also add in the Eccles. Theol.') alongside of the abbreviated
form. If in these works Eusebius uses the shorter forms for fear
of violating the disciplina arcani, why does he use the longer form
at all?

No one will be able to deny the justice of these claims. The
disciplina arcani, it is to be feared, is made the parent of many a
child which it would never recognise. At any rate it proves inade-
quate in our case. Accordingly we must seek elsewhere for the
cause of these omissions. Stepping in the footprints of Wilkin-
son, 6 Chase, 7 and Lebreton, 8 we shall examine the context itself,
and see whether it cannot break the seal of the secret. The bap-
tismal command is omitted in the 24 passages of the first two
groups ; hence we shall study these in order, with reference to their
context.

1. Dem. Evang. 1, 3.

Theme: The Mosaic government was not adapted to all nations.

Development:

The Mosaic ritual and rule of life with its minutiae of observ-

1 Beitrage zur Forderung christ. Theol. VII 1903, p. 30 sqq.

2 JThST, 1905, p. 496 sq.

3 Theol. des NT, Leipzig 1912, p. 211.

4 ZNTW, 1905, p. 267, n. xix.

6 Of. also K. Lake in ERE, s. v. Baptism, p. 380.
The Hibbert Journal, 1903, p. 572 sq.

7 JThSt, 1905, p. 485 sq.

8 Les Origines du Dogme de la Trinit, 1910, p. 479 sqq.

ances could be lived up to, only by the inhabitants of Palestine,
and that with difficulty. It was an impossible observance for the
Jews in the diaspora, and a fortiori for the nations of the world.
Hence it was necessary to establish a new order beyond the law of
Moses, according to which the nations of the universe might live
a life similar to that of Abraham, and partake in the same bless-
ing with him. " Accordingly when our Savior and Lord Jesus,
the Son of G-od, after his resurrection from the dead, said to his
disciples : ' Going make disciples of all the nations ', he rightly
added: c teaching them to observe all things, ivhatsoever I have
commanded you ' . He did not command them to teach the nations
the Mosaic observances, but what he had commanded, etc.".

It is evident that there is no call for the baptismal command in
this context. Eusebius is contrasting the Mosaic law and the
Christian law. He calls attention to the fact that the Mosaic law
was limited, adapted to only one people, and that even upon these
it imposed an almost impossible observance; whereas the law of
Christ was universal, adapted to all nations, and set forth a rule
of life which could be followed by all, everywhere. Eusebius cites
only that part of Christ's words, which brings his point into relief.
He omits the baptismal command, which could only hamper the
flow of his thought.

2. Dem. Evang. 1, 4.

Theme: Why do we reject the Mosaic rule of life, seeing that we
accept the Old Testament Writings?

Development:

We accept the books of the Jews, because they contain prophecies
about us Gentiles; because Moses and all the prophets after him,
have sung of the new Legislator to come. In them we Gentiles are
told to sing a new song; a song, which is further called the ISTew
Testament; a Testament, which according to Isaias, is the New
Law which shall go out of Sion. Which is this New Law which
shall go out of Sion other than the Gospel, which thru our Savior
Jesus Christ and thru his disciples, was disseminated thru the
world, according to the words which he spoke to his disciples:
" Going make disciples of all the nations, teaching them to observe
all things whatsoever I have commanded you ".

Again we have a contrast between the law of Moses and the law
of Christ. The baptismal command is not needed, and hence not
quoted.

3. Dem Evang. 1, 6.

Theme: The rule of life imposed upon all Christians by the New
Law.

Development:

Melchisedech, Noe, Enoch, Abraham, Job did not follow the
Mosaic ritual and ceremonial observances, but they practised the
virtues later inculcated by Christ. This old Law to which they
belonged, and which preceded the law of Moses, was forgotten for
a long time, but it was revived by Christ. The Mosaic law which
ruled in the interim, was given for a half -grown generation, who
thereby were enabled to live merely an imperfect life. But this
imperfect law was to cease with the coming of Christ.

Here Christ is introduced as speaking at length, and contrasting
his law with the law of Moses, and his moral obligations with the
Mosaic obligations. Then Eusebius continues: "These and other
similar things, the rule of the New Law, thru the teaching of
Christ, has announced to the nations. And these are the things,
which Christ commanded his disciples to announce to all the
nations, when he said: ( Going make disciples of all the nations,
teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded
you ' .

Once more we have a contrast between the Mosaic law and the
Christian law; between the Mosaic teaching and the Christian
teaching; between the Mosaic obligations and the Christian obli-
gations. Hence it was not necessary to cite the command to baptise.

4. Ps. 46, 4.

Text: He hath subdued the people under us; and the nations under
our feet.

Development:

" It is known to all that neither were the people subjected to the
sons of Core, nor were the nations brought under their feet ; whence
these things are said in the person of the Apostles. For they fol-
lowing the command of the Savior himself to teach all the nations,
were filled with his power, and went forth to all the nations, and
penetrated even into barbarous tribes, and traversed the entire in-
habited world."

The point that is brought to our notice here is the spread of
Christ's doctrine thru the world, and the subjection of all the
nations to his spiritual rule by the preaching of the Apostles.

Since this conquest of the world by the Apostles is the prominent
and, in fact, permeating thought in the context, it was entirely
superfluous to adduce the baptismal command.

5. Ps. 95, 3.

Text: Declare his glory among the Gentiles: his wonders among
all people.

Development :

"To whom must we consider these words addressed, if not to
those who later fulfilled them in deed, those namely who announced
to all the nations the salvation of God? Who are they that carry
out these words by their works? They are the disciples of Jesus,
who heard the command: ' Going make disciples of all the
nations ' ".

Again Eusebius is speaking of the spiritual conquest of the
universe by the preaching of the Apostles. He cites merely that
part of the Savior's words, which is necessary for his purpose.

6. De Eccles. Theol 3, 3.

Theme : The 'Correct interpretation of passages, on which Marcellus
has put a false construction.

Development :

The passage here in question is taken from Proverbs 8, 24:
" The depths were not as yet, and I was already conceived, neither
had the fountains of water as yet sprung out". Marcellus inter-
prets this passage thus: "Kightly the Lord in speaking of his
human birth has said thru his prophet Solomon: 'before the
fountains sprung out ' . For the Savior said to his holy fountains :
' Going make disciples of all the nations '. Therefore it is entirely
clear that the holy Apostles are figuratively called fountains by the
prophet ".

There was no necessity of introducing the baptismal command
here, since in Marcellus's view, the Apostles were the fountains,
which improved the soil of the universe by the rich doctrines of
Christ.

7. Dem. Evang. 3, 6.

Theme: Christ was not a magician.
Development:

A magician associates with depraved and wicked men, and
works for gain; Christ was most pure and holy, and despised
wealth. Hence his miracles must be ascribed to the power of

God, and not to witchcraft. His doctrine was of such a nature,
that it spread thru the whole world and subjected all people to
its rule. But to what magician's mind had it ever occurred to
found a nation in his own name, and to establish laws thruout the
world contrary to the ancient customs of all nations? Jesus not
only conceived and attempted such a plan, but he succeeded in
fulfilling it ; for when he gave the command to his disciples :
" G-oing make disciples of all the nations in my name, teaching
them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you",
he followed up this command by his deed. For at once the entire
Hellenic and barbarian races were discipled, and laws were pro-
mulgated among all the nations, contrary to their former super-
stition etc.

In this context we notice a contrast between the private lives of
magicians and the life of Christ ; between their teaching and his ;
between their power and his power; a contrast, too, between his
law and doctrine and the laws and doctrines of pagan nations.
There is no room for the baptismal command.

8-10. Dem. Evang. 3, 7 (thrice').

Theme : Christ is endowed with divine power.

Development :

This was already attested to by the pagan oracles; but it is evi-
dent to us especially by that miracle of miracles : the conquest of
the world thru poor fishermen. An ordinary legislator or king
has all that he can do, to enact laws and enforce them within his
kingdom; but Christ speaks like a God, indeed, when he says to
his disciples : " Going make disciples of all the nations." And lest
his disciples might become discouraged, and inquire by what power
they could preach the Gospel to the Romans, and speak to the
Egyptians, and converse with the Greeks, and evangelise the Per-
sians, Armenians, Chaldeans, Scythians, Indians and all barbaric
nations, he adds the one word : ee in my name ", " Going make
disciples of all the nations in my name". The Apostles obeyed
this command and conquered the world. This fact exemplifies
conclusively the super-human power of him who said: "Going
make disciples of all the nations in my name ".

Here the power of Christ as Lord and Legislator is in the fore-
ground, that power as set against and excelling the power of
ordinary kings and legislators. We could hardly expect Eusebius
to cite the baptismal command in this connexion.

11. Dem. Evang. 9.

Theme: The New Law of Christ is sanctioned by Deuteronomy.

Development:

Deut. 18, 15-19 : ..." I will raise them up a prophet out of
the midst of their brethren like to thee : and I will put my words
in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I shall command
him. And he that will not hear his words, which he shall speak
in my name, I will be the revenger ".

This legislator and teacher of piety to men who was to come
after Hoses, was none other than Christ. Moses, indeed, was the
leader of a single nation, and his law was adapted to a single
people ; but Christ with a super-human authority and a power more
divine than that of Moses, founded laws for the entire world. And
first, indeed, in keeping with the prophecy he confined himself to
the Jews; but when they spurned him, he turned to the Gentiles,
commanding his disciples : " Going make disciples of all the nations
in my name".

Again Christ's power as the divine and universal Legislator is
emphasized in contradistinction to Moses, the human and limited
legislator. There is no need to insert the command to baptise.

12. Hist. Ecdes. 3, 5.

Theme: The siege of Jerusalem after the death of Christ.

Development:

Since the Jews after the ascent of Christ into heaven did not
rest satisfied with their crime against him, but continued to per-
secute his disciples, by stoning Stephen, beheading James the
brother of John, and putting to death James the bishop of Jeru-
salem; and since they afflicted the other Apostles so severely that
they fled from Palestine and began to preach the Gospel to all the
nations, imbued with the power of Christ who had said to them:
" Going make disciples of all the nations in my name " ; and when
all the Christians had left Jerusalem and fled to Pella, then the
divine vengeance visited upon Jerusalem the crimes of which that
city had been guilty against Christ and his disciples.

There is certainly no necessity of citing the baptismal command
in this context.

13. De Laud. Constant. 16.

Theme: The causes of the universal peace which characterised the
reign of Constantine.

Development:

In the time of paganism the world was engulfed in wars and
crimes. This evil state was the direct result of the power of the
demons. This power of the demons was broken by Christ's death
on the cross. At the same time the Eoman Empire subjected all
nations to its sway. The powerful doctrine of Christ which tri-
umphed over the demons, and the powerful Eoman Empire which
conquered the rulers of the world, are responsible for this miracu-
lous change.

This change had been foretold of old; and it is a mighty testi-
mony to the divine origin of Christianity. " For what king in the
memory of man, what ruler, or lawgiver, or philosopher, or
prophet, be it of the Hellenes or of the barbarians, was gifted with
such power and authority as to fill the ears and tongues of all
peoples with his praise? None surely, except our Savior alone
could accomplish such a miracle, when after his victory over death
he gave his disciples the command, and confirmed that command
by his deed, saying to them : ' Going therefore make disciples of
all the nations in my name'; and since he told them that his
Gospel must needs be announced in the whole world, he followed
up his command by deeds.

Again, Christ's power over the demons is emphasized, and the
superiority of his legislative authority is stressed over all human
legislative bodies. There is no occasion to mention his command
to baptise.

14. Ps. 59, 9.

Text: God hath spoken in his holy one: I shall be exalted and
shall divide Sichem, and shall divide the vale of tents.
Galaad is mine, and Manasses in mine, and Ephraim is the
strength of my head. Juda is my king. Moab is the pot of
my hope. Into Edom will I stretch out my shoe: to me
the foreigners are made subject.

Development:

This holy one is Christ. The words are fulfilled in him. After
his ascension, he sent the Holy Ghost upon Sichem, that is, the
Samaritans ; he filled the valley of tents, that is, the universe, with
his churches; Galaad and Ephraim, Manasses and Juda became
subject to him; and in Moab and Edom was his rule over the
Gentiles symbolised.

According to another explanation, the words Sichem, Galaad,

Manasses, Ephraim, Juda, Moab and Edom represent all nations
indiscriminately. The Jews are mentioned in the first place, be-
cause to them first should the kingdom of God be announced ; but
after them Christ commanded his disciples to preach the Gospel
to all the nations in his name.

In these words the antithesis is brought out between the preach-
ing of the Gospel to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles. Why
should the command to baptise be forced into the context?

15. Ps. 65, 5. 6.

Text: Come and see the works of God, who is terrible in his coun-
sels over the sons of men ; who turneth the sea into dry land,
in the river they shall pass on foot: there we shall rejoice
in him, who by his power endureth forever.

Development:

All the nations are invited to come and consider the awe-inspir-
ing deeds, which God performed in behalf of his people, in Egypt,
in the Ked Sea, in the Jordan; and to reflect that he who could
confute his enemies of old, is still powerful against them. Hence
we should rejoice in him, who by his power endureth forever. We
should understand these words of that saying of Christ: "All
power is given to me in heaven and on earth. Going make disci-
ples of all the nations in my name ". Wherefore Aquila translates
it : " who exercises authority in his power forever ".

In the immediate context there is no place for the baptismal
command. However, had Eusebius cited Mt. 28, 19 earlier in his
Commentary, at the words : we shall rejoice in him, which he refers
to the waters of baptism, he would have been obliged to quote the
baptismal command. But in the immediate context, there is no
reason to cite them.

16. Ps. 67, 34.

Text: Behold he will give to his voice the voice of power; give ye
glory to God for Israel.

Development:

That Christ's voice was endowed with power is evident from his
deeds ; for when he said to his disciples : " Come, follow me, and I
shall make you fishers of men ", he- actually fulfilled this promise
by his power ; and again when he commanded them saying : " Going
make disciples of all the nations in my name ", he manifested his
power in very deed.

There is no necessity of quoting Christ's command to baptise,
as Eusebius wishes to bring to our notice the power of Christ's
commands; and this is abundantly done by citing the first part
of the text, in which the conquest of the world is announced.

17. Ps. 76, 20.

Text: Thy way is in the sea, and thy paths in many waters, and
thy footsteps shall not be known.

Development:

From the preceding verse we learn that the earth shook and
trembled. This was realised when Christ entered Jerusalem, and
the entire city was in consternation; also when the nations of the
world trembled on hearing the words of the Gospel from the lips
of the Apostles. How should we understand the prophet when he
says that Christ's way is in the sea, and his paths in many waters,
and his footsteps will not be known? This passage receives light
from his promise to his disciples : " Going make disciples of all
nations in my name ", and, " Behold I am with you all days even
to the end of the world". For thruout the entire world, invisibly
present to his disciples, he traveled on the sea of life, and in the
many waters of the nations. This he accomplished by his invisible
and hidden power.

The prominent ideas in this passage are that Christ's power is
universal and invisible. The universality is proved by Christ's
command : " Going make disciples of all the nations " ; the invisi-
bility, by the text : " Behold I am with you all days even to the end
of the world ". The baptismal command would be lost here.

18. Isaias 18, 2.

Text: Light messengers will go to an unsettled nation and a
strange and difficult people; ... to a nation without hope
and trodden under foot.

Development:

This command seems to be given to the disciples of our Savior.
Since they are messengers of good tidings, they are called mes-
sengers, and light ones, to distinguish them from the apostles of
the Jews. Wherefore the prophet addresses these messengers of
good tidings thus: You disciples of Christ, go as the Savior him-
self has commanded you ; ' G-o rather to the lost sheep of the house
of Israel ', and, ' Going make disciples of all the nations in my

name '."

Again it is the teaching office of the Apostles that is emphasized,
so that it was quite unnecessary to mention their power to baptise.

19. Isaias 34, 16.

Text: One hath not sought the other, because the Lord commanded
them and his Spirit gathered them together.

Development:

Eusebius has only one sentence here, viz : e< For he who said to
them, ' Make disciples of all the nations in my name ? , also forbad
them to establish their churches in one and the same place". It
would have been entirely irrelevant to call attention to the fact
that they had the power to baptise.

20. Syriac Theophany 3, 14 ==n. 13 De Laud. Const. 16.

21. Syriac Theophany 4, 16.

Theme: The interpretation of the parable of the marriage-feast
in Matthew.

Development:

The bridegroom is the divine Logos. The bride is the rational
soul. The servants are the solicitors. These solicitors, his dis-
ciples, are sent first of all to the people of the circumcision. When
they refuse to come, he sends the 70 disciples to invite them to
attend his banquet. When they maltreat and kill these disciples,
he sends the army of the Eomans to raze the city of Jerusalem.
The rest of the disciples, however, go out into the world, to fulfill
the command of their Lord : " Going make disciples of all the
nations in my name ".

Again it is the preaching of the Gospel on which Eusebius lays
stress. When the Jews refuse this grace, it is given to the Gentiles.
The context does not call for the baptismal command.

22. Syriac Theophany 5, 17 is the same in contents as n. 7 Dem.
Evang. 3, 6.

23. Syriac Theophany 5, 46 is the same as n. 8 Dem. Evang. 3, 7.

24. Syriac Theophany 5, 49 is the same as n. 10 Dem. Evang. 3, 7.

In all of these 24 instances there is not one case in which the
baptismal command is necessitated by the context; in most cases
its insertion would impede the flow of thought and spoil the con-
trast which is drawn between the universal, all-powerful law of

Christ and the limited, weak laws of religious and civil legislators.
It was Eusebius's purpose to stress the world-rule of the Savior,
whose laws and doctrines were not confined to any special people
or country, but embraced all the nations of the world. Not only
were his laws adapted to all, but by his power he saw to it that
they were actually observed '.everywhere, " in imperial Home, in
Alexandria and Antioch, in the whole of Egypt and Lybia, in
Europe and in Asia, in villages and hamlets, and among all
people " ('Syriac Theophany 5, 49 ; Dem. Evang. 3, 7), thus proving
incontestably the divine power, which raised him high above all
other lawgivers, civil or religious. In such a context, there was no
reason for Eusebius to mention the command of the Savior to the
Apostles to baptise all in the name of the Father, and of the Son,
and of the Holy Ghost; but it was sufficient that he adduced that
part of the 'Savior's words which laid stress on his divine and
universal power.

CHAPTEE IV.

THE TRINITARIAN CITATIONS.

By way of contrast let us now examine the texts in which the
trinitarian citation occurs.

25/26. Contra Marcellum 1, 1.

Theme: Reasons why Marcellus wrote his book, and his method
in writing.

Development:

He wrote his book out of envy and hatred. He insults the most
holy servants of God, living and dead, and blasphemes the Son of
God. I shall refute him by his own words. But first let me
admonish all those into whose hands his book may have fallen,
especially if they hail from G-alatia, that they should not forget
the words of St. Paul to the Galatians : " Though we or an angel
from heaven preach a Gospel to you besides that which we have
preached to you, let him be anathema". What was this Gospel?
The same which our Savior is said to have given to his disciples,
when he said to them : " Going make disciples of all the nations,
baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of
the Holy Ghost".

So far, indeed, the words of baptism are in no way necessitated
by the context ; but their presence is demanded by the words which
immediately follow : " For he alone has favored us with the grace
of knowing the Holy Trinity by means of the mystical regeneration,
since neither Moses, nor any of the prophets supplied this knowl-
edge to the people of the Old Law. For it was fitting that the
Son of God alone should announce this gift of his Father to all
men; for the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth thru
Jesus Christ alone, as the only begotten Son of God. . . . This
holy, blessed and mystic Trinity of Father, and Son, and Holy
Ghost, unto hope of salvation thru regeneration in Christ, the
Church of God has received and guards ".

There is no denying that in this context, the trinitarian citation
is absolutely necessary ; for in the words which precede and follow
the citation of Matthew, Eusebius does not expatiate on the uni-
versality and practicability of Christ's doctrine, but on the nature
82

of that doctrine. That doctrine was the same as the doctrine which
Paul had preached; it consisted especially in the revelation of the
(t blessed and mystic Trinity ", which had been reserved for Christ
alone to announce to the world. This doctrine of the Trinity
Christ has enabled us to know " l)y means of the mystical regenera-
tion ". Hence the command to baptise had to be quoted.

27. De Eccles. Theol 3, 5.

Theme: Christ's doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost.

Development:

In the most clear terms Christ teaches that the Holy G-host is a
distinct person from the Son. He cites in confirmation of this:
John 16, 15-17; 20, 22; 14, 23; 25, 26; 16, 7. This Holy Spirit
is the Comforter, Christ's representative on earth after his ascen-
sion into heaven, who was to teach the Apostles all things which
Christ had told them, Jn. 16, 12-14. He is called the Paraclete
to show that he is distinct from the Father and the Son, and dis-
tinct from the angels who are also spirits.

"'None of these spirits can be compared with the Comforting
Spirit. Therefore this one alone is comprised in the holy and
thrice-blessed Trinity, as also our Lord in commanding his dis-
ciples to administer baptism to all the nations who would believe
in him, did not order them to administer it in any other way than
by baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost ".

The trinitarian passage in this text is demanded by the context,
which emphasizes the dogma that the Holy Ghost is a Spirit, high
above the angels, and on an equal footing with the Father and
the Son.

28. Syriac Theophany, 4, 8.

Theme: The final commission of Christ to his Apostles according
to Matthew.

Development:

"After his resurrection from the dead, they all went according
to his command to Galilee, whither he had told them to go. And
when they saw him, some prostrated themselves but others doubted.
But he drew near to them, spoke to them and said: All power
in heaven and on earth is given me by my Father. Go, make dis-
ciples of all the people, and baptise them in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and teach them

ij'b

to observe all that I have commanded you, and behold, I am with
you all days until the end of the world ".

The trinitarian citation is not necessarily postulated by this
introductory description ; but its presence is demanded by the words
which follow later in the text, viz : " But of necessity did he add
the mystery of cleansing. For those who should be converted from
among the heathens, he had to cleanse by his power from all pollu-
tion and uncleanness, because they had been defiled by their de-
moniac and polytheistic error, and had been laden with unclean-
ness of all sorts, but had now for the first time renounced that life
of abomination and lawless practices. These very persons, then,
did he admonish to teach after this cleansing thru his mystic
doctrine . . . the observance of all things which he had com-
manded them".

The cleansing here can only refer to baptism. Conybeare in his
article of 1901, 1 calls attention to the expression the cleansing thru
his mystic doctrine. "This expression" he says, "precludes the
idea that the writer had in view the cleansing by the water of
baptism and rather suggests the exorcism at use of the name,
which preceded baptism, and were specially a cleansing by his
power from the pollution of demons ".

It cannot be denied that the expression the cleansing thru his
mystic doctrine is a peculiar expression ; still, as Wilkinson observes, 2
if we study this expression in connexion with Eusebius's doctrine
on the Trinity as set forth in the Contra Marcellum, it will be
evident that tho mystic doctrine of the text is the Trinity, and the
cleansing thru his mystic doctrine is baptism.

The passage in the Contra Marcellum 1, 1 reads : " For he alone
has favored us with the grace of knowing the Holy Trinity by
means of the mystical regeneration, since neither Moses nor any
of the prophets had supplied this knowledge to the people of the
Old Law. For it was fitting that the Son of God alone should
annoimce this gift of his Father to all men ; for the law was given
by Moses, but grace and truth thru Jesus Christ alone, as the
only begotten Son of God. It was right therefore that the Old
Law like a trainer of boys should teach the former childish people
merely the first elements of theology, securing them from the de-
ception of polytheism, and announcing to them the knowledge that
God is one. But the grace of the Savior has bestowed upon us a

1 ZNTW, n. 24, p. 282.

2 The Hibbert Journal, 1903, p. 573.

super-mundane and angelic knowledge, and has clearly unveiled
the mystery which had been kept from the former people, inasfar
as it announced to us that God himself, who is above all, and who
was known to the men of yore, is at once the God and Father of
the only begotten 'Son; and inasfar as it tells us of the power of
the Holy Ghost, as it is supplied to those who are worthy of it, by
the Son. This holy, blessed and mystic Trinity of Father, and
Son, and Holy Ghost, unto hope of salvation thru regeneration in
Christ, the Church of God has received and guards ".

The Contra Marcellum was most probably written soms three or
four years after the Theophany; and there can be no doubt that
the mystical doctrine of the Theophany is the same as that of the
Contra Marcellum, scil: the doctrine of the Trinity, which was a
doctrine peculiar to the New Testament, reserved for the Son to
announce to the world. Hence, the cleansing thru his mystic doc-
trine can only mean baptism, which was made possible thru the
revelation of the Trinity.

29. The Letter to Caesar ea.

This has already been extensively treated. Altho the trinitarian
citation is not needed in the creed, it does not in any way " offend
the context ", since the creed has the triple division : in the Father
... in the Son ... in the Holy Ghost.

Before closing this question of the baptismal command, it will
be well to note Conybeare's statement in ZNTW 1905, 3 that
Eusebius in his Praepar. Evang. speaks of a Trinity, but that he
bases his doctrine on John 1, 1 sq. and Col. 1, 15, as if he did not
know of Mt. 28, 19 ; whereas the author of the Contra Marcellum
rests his doctrine exclusively on Mt. 28, 19.

Both these statements are false. In Praepar. Evang. 11, 19
(MG 21 900 sq.) Eusebius indeed cites John 1, Isq. and Col. 1,
15, but not to prove the doctrine of the Trinity; the Trinity is
not as much as mentioned in the whole chapter. He adduces these
texts in support of the doctrine that the Son is the second cause
or principle, thru whom all things are made. In the second refer-
ence to the Trinity in the Pra^epar. Evang. 13, 13 (MG 21 1116),
the doctrine is not based on any scripture text, as it is Eusebius's
purpose to show that this doctrine was already known to Plato.

Conybeare's second statement, that the author of the Contra

8 N". xiii, p. 260.

Marcellum rests his doctrine on Mt. 28, 19 exclusively, is more
false than the preceding, if that were possible. To take one in-
stance : In the fifth book Contra Marcellum (De Eccles. Theol. 3,
5), Eusebius bases his doctrine of the Trinity on John 14, 15-17;
20, 22; 14, 23; 25, 26; 16, 7; 16, 12-14; Col. 2, 3. The text of
Mt. 28, 19 is added only at the end to cap the climax after the
doctrine had already been firmly established by the other passages.
In the following chapter 3, 6, texts are brought forward to estab-
lish the same doctrine from Col. 1, 16, Eph. 4, 5. 6 etc, . . .

Consequently, it cannot be said that the Contra Marcellum con-
tradicts the Praepar. Evang. so that both could not have been
written by the same author.

CHAPTER V.

THE INSEKTION OF ' IN MY NAME '.

F. H. Chase 1 has suggested that the expression 'in my name'
which in 17 instances is connected with the parting words of
Christ, might have been a variant which Eusebius found in some
manuscripts at Caesarea, or it might be a peculiar reading due to
Eusebius himself. Lebreton 2 decides for the second alternative,
deriving the expression from the parallel passages of the synoptics
and especially from Luke. He calls this solution most probable.

In support of the first statement Chase calls attention to the
fact that Eusebius repeatedly manifests an acquaintance with the
e western' text of the New Testament. This ' western' text, he
says, betrays a fondness for inserting references to the name of
Jesus into the text of the Bible. Thus in Acts 6, 8 to the words :
" And Stephen full of grace and fortitude, did great wonders and
signs among the people ", Codex Laudianus adds : " in the name of
the Lord"; Codex Berne with some cursives has the reading: "by
the name of the Lord Jesus Christ". Likewise in Acts 14, 10:
" Paul said with a loud voice, Stand upright on thy feet ", Ephrae-
mi rescriptus, Bezae, and others insert after "voice": "I say to
you in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ ". Again in Acts 18, 4 :
"(Paul) reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persecuted
the Jews and the Greeks ", Bezae and fragm. Floriacensia add after
" sabbath " : " bringing in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ ", as
it is still preserved in the Vulgate. Then in Acts 18, 8 after:
" Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed in the Lord ", the
same two manuscripts add: "thru the name of the Lord Jesus
Christ".

Since, therefore, the ( western ' text shows a fondness for insert-
ing references to the name of Jesus, and since this text is notice-
able in the works of Eusebius, the possibility of the first alterna-
tive cannot be denied. It is, indeed, possible, that among the
manuscripts of Caesarea a variant of Mt. 28, 19 might ha^ve existed
in the form : " Going make disciples of all the nations in my name,
baptising them, etc.".

'Tho this is possible, still it cannot be proved, since none of our

J JThSt, 1905, p. 488 sqq.

a Les Origines du Dogme de la TrinitS, 1910, p. 485.

extant manuscripts or versions, or the works of any of the other
Fathers, show the slightest acquaintance with such a variant.
Moreover the existence of such a variant is not needed to account
for the citations in Eusebius ; and its existence is not even probable.
The reasons for these assertions are the following.

In the five instances in which Eusebius is known to cite our
text fully, scil : twice in Contra Marcellum 1, 1 ; De Eccles. Theol.
3, 5; Syriac Theophany 4, 8; and the Letter to Caesarea, in-
stances, consequently, in which if ever, he might reasonably be
expected to cite exactly, since the context in each case is of a
theological character, the words of Matthew are quoted as we have
them in the textus receptus. The phrase in my name is not men-
tioned. Had it been an original part of the Gospel, there would
have been no reason for Eusebius to omit it, especially in the
Syriac Theophany 4, 8, where he notes that the Apostles summoned
courage to brave the dangers of their mission, from the recollection
that Christ had said to them : " Behold I am with you all days
until the end of the world". In most of the other cases (as for
instance Dem. JEvang. 3, 7), he claims that the diffidence of the
Apostles was dispelled by the fact that they recalled the words of
Christ: " Going, make disciples of all the nations in my name 1 '.
Here, however, since he is arguing merely from the Gospel of
Matthew, as appears from the title of the chapter, he mentions as
the source of their courage, not the command to preach in the
name of Jesus, but the promise that Jesus would be with them until
the end of the world. Consequently, Eusebius did not consider
the phrase in my name as an original part of Mt. 28, 19 ; and had
there been a variant with this reading among the manuscripts, he
evidently considered it as an insertion, and in no way a saying of
Christ, inasfar as his words are recorded in the Gospel of Matthew.

However, in the 17 instances in which it does occur, Eusebius
cites it as a word of Christ. A good example of this is had in
Dem. Evang. 3, 7. 3 After stating the command of the Savior to
his disciples to preach the Gospel to all the nations, and after
noting the fear and uneasiness which the Apostles might experience
at the thought of performing such a feat, Eusebius continues:
"Lest the disciples might entertain or give expression to such
thoughts, as it was most probable they would, the Teacher ' added
the solution to these difficulties, saying correctly : ' in my name '.
For he did not command them simply and indefinitely to instruct

3 MG, 22, 240 B C.

all the nations, but with the necessary addition : in his name. But
since the power of this name was of such a nature that the Apostle
said: 'God has given him the name which is above every name,
that in the name of Jesus every knee might bend of those in heaven
and on earth and under the earth 7 ; therefore he rightly stressed
the excellent power of that name, which escapes (the notice of)
the generality of men, inasf ar as he said to his disciples : ' Going,
make disciples of all the nations in my name 7 . Thereupon, ex-
ceedingly well and accurately does he foretell the future, saying :
c For this G-ospel must needs be announced in the whole world as
an evidence to all the nations ' " (Tavra. >} ^aavruv av Kara rb

et/cos, T) SbavorjOevraiV TO>V rov 'If/crou piBrjTwv, /was -TT/OOCT^K^ Ae^ews avrois
6 AtSaovcaAos Xvcriv r&v airoprjOevTuv viri6c.ro, <j)r)cra<; fcaropOaxrw, iv rw
ovopari jaov. Ov yap 877 aTrAws /cat dStoptcrrcos ju/atf^reikrai irdvra ra e6vr)
TT/oooreraTTe, jaera Trpoo^K^s Se dvay/caias, rrjs iv TW oVojaart avrov . . .
et/cortos, T^S rovs TroAAovs Aavflavovo^s Iv r<a ovofian avrov Swa/xeo^s T^V
aperyv e/x^atvwv', rot? avrov jua^rats ec^^cre iropevOevres {jutOrjrevcrare
iravra, ra Wvf] ev TW ovo/urn /AOU. Act yap KypvxOrjvai TO EvayyeAiov TOUTO
iv oXy ry oiKOVfievy ets paprvpiov iravi rots eOveaw) .

Here we have before our eyes an excellent object-lesson of
Eusebius's method in presenting the parting words of the risen
Lord. We have first the command: te Going, make disciples of
all the nations " ; secondly, the addition : " in my name " ; thirdly,
the prophecy: "for this Gospel must needs be announced in the
whole world as an evidence to all the nations ". These three cita-
tions seem to be taken from one and the same source; and the
third part seems to follow immediately after the first two. Yet
we shall look in vain for these last words in the final commission
of Christ to his disciples, as that commission is set down in the
Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. The parallel passages of the
synoptics are:

MK. 15, 16 sqq.

Go ye into the whole
world and preach the
Gospel to every creature.
He that believeth and is
baptised shall be saved:
but he that believeth not,
shall be condemned. And
these signs shall follow
them that believe:

MT. 28, 18 sqq.
All power is given to
me in heaven and in
earth. Going, therefore,
make disciples of all the
nations, baptising them
in the name of the Fa-
ther, and of the Son, and
of the Holy Ghost, teach-
ing them to observe all

LK. 24, 46 sqq.

Thus it is written, and
thus it behooved Christ
to suffer, and to rise
again from the dead,
the third day; and that
penance and remission of
sins should be preached
in his name unto all
nations, beginning at

things whatsoever I have my name they shall cast Jerusalem. And you are

commanded you ; and be- out devils ; they shall witnesses to these things,

hold I am with you all speak with new tongues; And I send the promise

days even to the end of they shall take up ser- of my Father upon you;

the world. pents; and if they shall but stay you in the city,

drink any deadly thing, until you be endued with

it shall not hurt them; power from on high.

they shall lay their

hands upon the sick, and

they shall recover.

From the paradigm it is evident that the prophecy of which
Eusebius speaks, is not taken from the parting words of Christ,
but is taken from his words uttered on another occasion in his life,
at the time when he forgave the sinfnl woman who anointed his
feet in Bethany at the house of Simon the leper. This incident
has been preserved by both Matthew (26, 13) and Mark (14, 9).
The prophecy runs: "Wherever this Gospel (TO Euayye'Aiov TOWO,
in both) shall be preached (mipvxOji, i n both) in the whole world
(Mt. lv 6'Ao) TO) KoVjtt<u; Mk. ts oXov rov Kocrpov), that, too, which she
has done, will be spoken of in memory of her (ets /wyjwcrvvov avTy-s,
in both) .

All doubt on this point will be removed by the Syriac Theophany
4, 10. In 4, 8 Eusebius, as is evident from the title of the chapter
and the context, treats of the final words of Christ from the Gospel
of Matthew ; in 4, 9, as we also know from the title and the context,
he dwells on the same final words from the Gospel of Luke; in 4,
10, as is again clear from the title and the context, he takes up
the prophecy 'of Christ concerning the preaching of his Gospel,
pronounced in connexion with the incident at Bethany, as related
by Matthew and Mark.

After producing this incident and the prophetic words of Christ,
Eusebius .continues : " He foretold this, altho at that time the
writing of the Gospel had not been thought of, and had not come
to the hearing of anyone; and not even those who lived in the
neighborhood were acquainted with the facts that had taken place,
but only those persons knew of them who had happened to be
present. Nevertheless, he uttered this great Word, and prophecied
that the Gospel which would be composed by his disciples, would
be announced in the whole world; and he followed up this word
by his deed, when he said that together with his works, that, also,
which this woman had done, would be recorded in the Gospel and
told in the whole world in memory of her. That this was con-
firmed in very deed is clear; for there is no people, no land, no

place, in which the memory of this woman is not kept, that mem-
ory which is set down in the Gospel concerning him, and which is
announced in the whole world together with the doctrine about
him ".

Consequently, it cannot 'be denied that the prophecy which
Eusebius in Dem. Evang. 3, 7 connects with the parting words of
Christ, and which he introduces immediately after the command
of the Savior to preach the Gospel to the whole world in his name,
is taken ieither from Mt. 26, 13 sq., or Mk. 14, 9 sq. This prophecy
is likewise thus connected with the final commission, in Dem. Evang.
3, 7 (MG- 22 240 C), which corresponds exactly with Syriac Theo-
phany 4, 10; then, too, in Syriac Theophany 3, 4; 5, 46; Ps. 67,
34-35 (MG 23 720 C) ; De Laud. Const. 16 (MG 20 1425 C).

In this last case it seems that Eusebius also had the words of
Mark in mind, when he mentions the command : " Going, there-
fore, make disciples of all the nations in my name ". For he con-
tinues : " Having foretold and emphasized the fact that his Gospel
must needs be preached in the whole world as an evidence to all
the nations, he followed up this word by his deed. For at once,
at no great interval of time, the entire world was rilled with his
doctrine. IsTow, since the evidence of sight is stronger than any
argument, what could he have to say to this, who at the beginning
of this treatise found fault with us? Who by his invisible and
mighty power drove from the company of men, like so many
dreadful beasts, that dangerous and worthless tribe of demons,
which of old had encroached on the entire nature of man, and had
displayed much witchcraft among men by the movements of the
idols? Who other than our Savior gave the power of driving out
the remnant of the wicked spirits from men, to those who chastely
and sincerely took up the manner of living which he had taught, by
making use of the purest prayers with his invocation (8ia r^s ets
avrov 7rucA^crws) , sent up to the God of all by him ? "

Do not these words put us in mind of Mk. 16, 17 : " And these
things shall follow them that believe ; In my name they shall cast
out devils " ?

Furthermore in Dem. Evang. 3, 7 (MG 22 244 A.}, = Syriac
Theophany 5, 49, we meet with a more curious combination. The
Dem. Evang. 3, 7 reads : " Make disciples of all the nations in my
name. When he had said this he added the promise, at which they
should take courage, and give themselves over confidently to the
things commanded them. He said therefore to them : And behold

I am with you all days, until the end of the world. But he is also
said to have breathed the Holy G-host upon them, and to have given
them a divine and wonder-working power, saying both (rore) :
Eeceive ye the Holy Ghost; and also (rdre) : Heal the sick, cleanse
the lepers, cast out devils, freely have you received, freely give".

The words receive ye the Holy Ghost, are taken from ,Jno. 20,
22; and altho spoken by Christ after his resurrection, they do not
form part of the final commission. The other citation is from
Mt. 10, 8 ; -and the words were spoken, when Christ sent his twelve
Apostles forth on their first mission. No doubt Eusebius quotes
it here on account of its similarity in thought with ,Mk. 16, 17. 18 :
" And these signs shall follow them that believe : In my name they
shall cast out devils; .they shall speak with new tongues; they shall
take up serpents, and if they shall drink any deadly thing, it shall
not hurt them; they shall lay their hands upon the sick, and they
shall recover".

These examples reveal a tendency in Eusebius to weld together
various passages which relate to the same subject, but which are
separated in time and occasion, and to make it appear as if they
were spoken at one and the same time, and were recorded in one
and the same source. In view of this tendency to correlate similar
passages, it will not be hard to admit that the phrase in my name
is taken over directly from the parallel passage of Luke 24, 47:
"And he said to them . . . that penance and remission of sins
should be preached in his name unto all the nations beginning at
Jerusalem ".

This is made the more plausible by the fact that in not one of
the 17 cases, in which the expression is cited as a word of Christ,
is it referred directly to the Gospel of Matthew. Eusebius speaks
of it in general terms as a saying of the Savior (almost always),
or as occurring in the Gospels (Is. 41. 10 MG 24 377 D). Then,
too, the circumstance that in the Syriac Theophany, Book 4, the
entire eighth chapter is devoted to the parting words of Christ as
they are recorded in Matthew's Gospel, whereas the entire following
chapter is devoted to the same parting words as recorded in Luke's
Gospel, brings the thought home to us that the words of Luke were
present to Eusebius's mind, when he cites Christ's final commis-
sion to his Apostles.

In this ninth chapter of the Syriac Theoph. Eusebius quotes the
words of Luke : Cf And he said to them : ' Thus must Christ suffer
and arise from the dead on the third day, and penance and remis-

sion of sins be announced in his name to all the nations, beginning
at Jerusalem. You are witnesses of these things ' ". Then he con-
tinues : " After having once said that in his name penance should
be announced to all people, if this word were not fulfilled, then we
should be justified in not believing in his resurrection from the
dead". He goes on to say it was this word that inspired the
Apostles with confidence in Christ's power, so that emboldened in
spirit, they set their face against dangers and hardships, and so
conquered the world.

It is not far-fetched, therefore, to say that these words of Luke
influenced Eusebius in the other instances where he treats of the
final command of the Savior. This view is furthermore confirmed
by the Greek fragment of the Theophany as it is preserved in
Migne 24, 629 B-C. We read there that in order to fulfil the
prophecy : Ask of me and I shall give the Gentiles for thy inheri-
tance, and the utmost parts of the earth for thy possession, Christ
said to his disciples "according to Matthew: All power is given
to me in heaven and on earth; but according to Luke; that re-
pentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to
all the nations ".

Since F. H. Chase 4 considered these clauses as original parts of
Eusebius's text, it is surprising that he did not draw the con-
clusion that the phrase in my name, which is associated with the
parting words, was taken over from Luke 24:., 47. Gressmann,
however, in his critical edition (p. 21*) has reconstructed the text
thus : " he said to his disciples : All power is given to me in heaven
and on earth " ; and has omitted the rest as a gloss of Codex Vati-
to explain the anomaly by the supposition of a double source.
cani. Lebretoii 5 gives both the reading of Migne and that of
Gressmann without deciding between them; but there can be no
doubt that the clauses in question are not original, since in no
other place is Eusebius at pains to distinguish so nicely between
the sources of his citations. Still the gloss shows that Eusebius's
peculiar citations had caught the eye of the amanuensis, who sought
to explain the anomaly by the supposition of a double vsource.

In view of what has been said, we must conclude as certain that
the expression in my name is taken over with the necessary altera-
tion from Luke 24, 47.

'The psychological motive for such an act is to be found in the
deep and at times superstitious respect, which ancient people had

*JThS, 1905, p. 494. C L. c., p. 485, note 4.

for names in general, and in particular for the name of their deity ;
and in our case, in the power which Christians attributed to the
name of Jesus. We have a clear instance of this view in the Dem.
Evang. 3, 7 (MG- 22 240 B<C), quoted above: "But since the power
of this name was of such a nature that the Apostle said : e God has
given him the name which is above every name, that in the name
of Jesus every knee might bend of those in heaven and on earth
and under the earth'; therefore he rightly stressed the excellent
power of that name which escapes (the notice of) the generality
of men, inasf ar as he said to his disciples : ( Going, make disciples
of all the nations in my name ' ". Therefore since Christ, accord-
ink to Luke, told his disciples in his farewell words to preach the
Gospel to all the nations in his name, Eusebius took out this phrase
as best exemplifying the cause and origin of the rapid spread of
Christianity thruout the world.

The change of the person from "penance and remission of sins
should be preached in his name " , to : " Going, make disciples of
all the nations in my name " , can cause no difficulty. It is a mere
trifle, when we measure it by the flagrant license which Eusebius
allows himself in citing Scripture generally. This will be the more
evident from the following chapter.

CHAPTER VI.

EUSEBIUS'S METHOD OF CITING SCRIPTUKE.

We have noticed that in citing the words of Mt. 28, 19, Euse-
bius omits the baptismal command in 24 instances, and in 17 of
these he inserts the phrase in my name. If we subject these pas-
sages to a closer examination, we shall observe further liberties
which Eusebius takes with this text of Matthew.

The form : " Going make disciples of all the nations in my
name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have com-
manded you", which Conybeare would have us believe was the
original text, occurs only in the Dem. Evang. 3, 6, and the cor-
responding part of the Syriac Theophany 5, 17. This same form,
with the omission of in my name, appears in Dem. Evang. 1, 3 ;
1, 4; 1, 6. An abbreviated form: "Going, make disciples of all
the nations in my name ", is found in Dem. Evang. 3, 7 (twice)
and in the corresponding portions of the Syriac Theophany 5, 46
and 5, 49, and also in 4, 16 ; in Dem. Evang. 9 ; Hist. Eccles. 3, 5 ;
Ps. 59, 9; Ps. 65, 5; Ps. 67, 34; Ps. 76, 20; Is. 18, 2; Is. 34, 16;
De Laud. Const. 16.

But even here there are variants. Thus De Laud. Const, puts in
yovv after Tropevflevres, Going therefore. In Ps. 65, 5 iropevBevre^ is
supplied by the impossible form iropevovn?, which Conybeare as-
serts 1 (perhaps rightly), is a corrupt reading for irepuovres, altho
it might more easily be a corrupt reading for iropevdevres, as Lebre-
ton suggests. 2 The word is missing entirely in Dem. Evang. 3, 7
(MG 22 241 D) and in Is. 34, 16, so that we get the form: Make
disciples of all the nations in my name. Ps. 46, 4; Ps. 95, 3, De
Eccles. Theol. 3, 3 and Syriac Theophany 3, 4 give a differently
abbreviated reading: Going teach all the nations. 3

Therefore we can hardly speak of any uniform method in these
citations. But on comparing them with the textus receptus, we
shall observe the following peculiarities.

1. Eusebius omits:
a) the baptismal command 24 times ;

1 ZNTIW, 1901, p. 283, n. 28.

2 Les Origines Du Dogme de la TrinitS, 1910, p. 482, note 1.

3 Cf . E. Riggenbach, Beitrage zur Forderung Christlicher Theologie VII,
1903, p. 21. 95

b) the phrase: "teaching them to observe all things etc. 19 times;

c) the word iropevOtvTK twice.

2. He inserts:

a) the phrase: in my name, 17 times;

b) the word yow once.

This trait on Eusebius's part of omitting phrases, which he con-
siders irrelevant to his subject, and of inserting others which he
considers pertinent, is not restricted to his citations of Mt. 28, 19.
It is a characteristic trait, which permeates all his writings, and
is exemplified in many of his citations. This statement will be
borne out by the following examples, most of which have been gath-
ered at random. The examples have been restricted to New Testa-
ment quotations, since his citations from the Old Testament are
difficult to control, owing to the fact that he might have used the
original text, or the Septuagint, or the versions of Aquila or Sym-
machus, to whom he constantly refers in his Commentary on the
Psalms. We shall first trace the citations of two specific texts thru
the writings of Eusebius, viz: Mt. 11, 27, and Mt. 16, 18; then
we shall take other passages promiscuously.

I. Mt. 11, 27. 4

The textus receptus reads: " All things have been delivered to
me by my Father; and no one knows (KO! ouSeis eTnyiyj/aJo-Ket) the
Son except the Father, neither does anyone know (ovSe TL<S lm-
yiyvwovca) the Father except the Son, and to whom the Son may

wish to reveal (him) (lav /3ov\r]Tai airoKakvif/at) .

We notice the following renditions of this text in Eusebius's
works :

1. Dem. Evang. 4, 3 MG 22 257 B.

"As nobody knows (oWe/> ouSei? eyv<o) the Father except the
Son, so neither does anyone know (ovro> /cat ouSets eyi/a>) the Son
except the Father, alone, who has begotten him (et /*,r/ ^wos 6

CLVTOV

2. Dem. Evang. 5, 1 MG 22 356 D.

"No one knows (ouSet? eyi/w) the Father except the Son, and no
one knows (K<U o-uSets eyi/w) the Son except the Father."

*Of. H. Schumacher, Die Selbstoffenbarung Jesu, Freiburg im Breisgau,
1912, p. 57 sqq.

3. Hist. Eccles. 1, 2 MG 20 53 B.

" For neither does anyone know (on 8*7 oure rts eyvco) the Father
except the Son, nor on the other hand would anyone ever know the
Son adequately (OUT' ai5 rts yvcoi? TTOTC /car' diav) except the Father
alone who has begotten him".

4. Epist. ad Const. MG 20 1545 B.

"Neither does anyone know the Father (cure rts eyvco) except
the Son, neither could anyone ever possibly know the Son ade-
quately (ovS' avTOv Ytov yvoir) iro-ri TIS eVa^t'cos) except the Father
alone who has begotten him".

5. Eclogae Propheticae 1, 12 MG- 22 1065 A.

"Neither does anyone know the Father (/jiytf els eyvco) except
the Son, and to whom the Son might reveal him" (av a/Tro/coA^??) .

6. Contra Marcellum 1, 1 MG 24 721 B.

"All things have been delivered to me by my Father, and no
one knows the Son (ovSecs eViytyvtooxet) except the Father, neither
does anyone know the Father (ovSl TIS eTriyiyvcoo-ycet) except the
Son ".

7. De Eccles. Theol. 1, 12 MG 24 848 C.

"No one knows the Father (/wySets eyvco) except the Son, neither
does anyone know the Son (/^Se rts eyvco) except the Father alone
who has begotten him".

8. Id. 1, 13 I. c. 852 A.

" All things have been delivered to me by my Father ".

9. Id. 1, 15 I c. 853 D sq.

He quotes Marcellus as saying : " For no one knows the Father
(ouSets yap ole) except the Son". Then a few lines later: "No
one knows the Father (ovSets eWxiyvcoovcei,) except the Son and to
whom the Son will reveal him" (av cbroKaAvi/'ei) .

10. Id. 1, 16 I c. 857 A.

"No one knows the Father (ouSets eyvco) except the Son, and to
whom the Son will reveal him" (av cwroKaAityei) .

11. Id. 1, 20 I. c. 873 B.

" All things have been delivered to me by my Father. And no
one knows the Son (ouSeis eVtyiyvcoo-Kec) except the Father".

12. De Fide Adversus Sabellium 2 I. c. 1061 B.

"JSTo one knows the Father (nemo novit) except the Son, and
no one knows the Son (nemo novit) except the Father ".

From these examples we notice :

1. That Eusebius omits:

a) "All things have been delivered to me by my Father", in
nn. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 9, 10, 11.

b) " and to whom the Son may wish to reveal him " in nn. 1, 2,
3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12.

c) " No one knows the Son except the Father " in nn. 5, 8, 9, 10.

d) " No one knows the Father except the Son " in nn. 8, 11.

2. He inserts:

a) " except the Father alone who has begotten him " in nn. 1,
3, 4, 7.

b) "ever . . . adequately" in nn. 3, 4.

3. He changes:

a) emytywHTxct into eyi/o> in nn. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10.

b) the second emyiypuoxet into yvcfyy in no. 3 ; into yvofy in no. 4.

c) lav j3ovXr)Tai airoKakvij/ai into av aTTOKaXfyy (no. 5) ', av

XfytL (nn. 9, 10).

d) KOI OU<5etS . . . Ov8l TIS, into &<Tirep OvSetS . . . OUTCO KOL

(no. 1) ; ouSets . . . Kal ouSeis (no. 2) ', ovre rts . . . our 5 av
rt5 (no. 3) J ovre rts . . . ovre ns (no. 4) ; pr)$' ets (no. 5) j
/wySeis . . . /wySe TIS (no. 7).

Would we be justified in concluding from these instances that
the phrases " all things have been delivered to me by my Father,"
and " and to whom the Son may reveal him," were not in the text,
which Eusebius used, simply because he omits the first 10 times,
and the second 9 times ? Would we be justified in saying that the
phrase " except the Father alone who has begotten him," originally
belonged to the text, because Eusebius quotes it 4 times, each time
with the same phraseology? Should we conclude that Eusebius
read e'yvw instead of eTrtyiyi/wovcei, because he used the former 7 times
and the latter only three times ? Yet this is just what Conybeare
does with Mt. 28, 19 on account of similar peculiarities.

Let us now take the second case: Mt. 16, 18. 5

6 Cf. Reach Aussercanon. Paralleltexte zu den Evangelien TU X Band,

99
II. Mt. 16, 18.

The textus receptus runs: "And I say to thee that thou art
Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates
of hell shall not prevail against it ".

1. This text is cited exactly in:

a) Dem. Evang. 3, 5 MG 22 216 D;

b) De Eesurrectione 2 MG 24 1111 B;

c) 'Syriac Theophany 4, 11 (Gressmann, p. 181*) ;

d) Hist. Eccles. 6, 25 MG 20 584 A.

Here Eusebius quotes words of Origen which suppose the
received text, scil: "Peter, on whom is built the Church of
Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail ".

2. However, we meet with the form : " Upon the rock will I build

my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against
it , in

a) De Laud. Const. 17 MG 20 1435 C;

b) Praep. Evang. 1 3 " 21 33 B;

c) Ps. 59 11 " 23 572 D;

d) Ps. 67 34 " 23 720 C;

e) Is. 33 20 " 24 329 B;

f) Is. 49 16 " 24 457 A.

3. We find an addition to this, in the form : " Upon the rock will

I build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail
against it. The rock, however, was Christ" (taken from I
Cor. 10, 4), in Ps. 17, 15. 16, MG 23 173 D.

4. We find a still more abbreviated form in Is. 28, 16 MG 24

292 A : " Upon the rock will I build my church ".

Is it right for us, therefore, to maintain that the phrase " and I
say to thee that thou art Peter ", did not exist in the manuscripts
which Origen and Pamphilus had gathered at Caesarea, and which
must have ante-dated our oldest uncials by 50-150 years ? Can we
in defence of this theory overthrow Eusebius's authorship of the
Dem. Evang. and of the De Eesurrectione , and accuse the Syriac
translator of the Theophany " of garbling his text ", or of " copy-
ing the phrase out of the Syriac Vulgate in order to save himself
labor ? " We might reasonably hesitate in drawing, and surely, in

I Theil, Leipzig, 1894, p. 187 . . .; also: Th. Zahn, Das Evang. des Matth.
ad loc. p. 544, note 65.

8 b

100

positively asserting, such far-sweeping conclusions, even from the
citations of a scrupulously conscientious author, let alone an author
like Eusebius, whose freedom with the Sacred Text renders him
unreliable in reconstructing the exact form of any text of Holy
Writ. This will be more evident from the examples which follow.

III. Miscellaneous Citations.
A. Omissions.

1. Dem. Evang. 10 MG 22 717 C.

" He said to the evil ones : ' Why do you seek to kill me, a man
who has spoken the truth to you ? ' "

John 8, 40 : " But now you seek to kill me, a man who has spoken
the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did
not".

2. Ps. 59, 8. 9 MG 23 565 C.

" These things occurred after the disciples of the Savior suffered
persecution at Jerusalem. For the Scripture says: ' There was
raised a great persecution against the Church, which was at Jeru-
salem, and they were all dispersed ' ".

Acts 8, 1 : " And at that time there was raised a great persecu-
tion against the Church, which was at Jerusalem, and they were all
dispersed thru the countries of Judea and Samaria, except the
Apostles " .

3. Ps. 59, 8. 9 I. c. 568 C.

" This was Esau, of whom it has been said : ' lest there be any
fornicator, or profane person like Esau 5 ".

Heir. 12, 16: "Lest there be any fornicator or profane person
like Esau, who for one mess sold his first birthright " .

4. Ps. 59, 13. 14 1. c. 573 C.

" Such was Paul who said : 1 1 can do all things in him, who
strengthens me' (exactly as in Phil. 4, 13) ; and again: 'yet not
I but the grace with me ".

I Cor. 15, 10: "But by the grace of God I am what I am, and
his grace in me has not been void; but I have labored more abun-
dantly than all they; yet not I but the grace of God with me ".

5. Ps. 62, 4-6 I. c. 608 B.

" According to the one who says : ' I will that men pray, lifting
up pure hands, without anger and contentions

101

I Tim. 2, 8: "I will, therefore, that men pray in every place,
lifting up pure hands, without anger and contention

6. Ps. 62, 7-9 I. c. 609 A.

" And in another place the Savior says : ( Be prepared because
you do not know in what watch (<f)vXai<fi) your Lord will come'.
And again: 'But this know ye that if the master of the house
knew in which watch the thief would come'".

M t. 24, 42 sq. : " Be prepared, therefore, because you do not
know in what day (f^ipa) your Lord will come. But this know
ye that if the master of the house knew in which watch the thief
would come, he would certainly be prepared and would not allow his
house to be 'broken open".

7. De Eccles. Theol. 1, 20 MG 24 865 B.

"(John the Evangelist) says of the Baptist: 'He was not the
light, but was to give testimony of the light, which enlightens
every man that comes into the world. He was in the world and
the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. He
came into his own, and his own received him not ' ".

John 1, 8 sq. : " He was not the light, but was to give testimony
of the light. That was the true light, which enlightens every man,
that comes into the world, etc.".

8. Idem I. c. 869 A.

" John bears testimony of him and says : ' This was the one that
will come after me, who was preferred before me, because he was
before me, because of his fulness we have all received'".

John 1, 15 sq. : "This was the one of whom I spolce: He that
shall come after me, is preferred before me etc ".

9. Idem I c. 869 D sq.

"We can hear (the Savior) himself, who teaches (us) thus:
' For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son, that
whosoever believes in him, may not perish '. And again : ' For
God seni> not his Son into the world to judge the world'. And
again : ' But he that does not believe, is already judged ; because
he does not believe in the name of the only begotten .Son of God ' ".

John 3, 16 sqq. : " For God so loved 'the world, as to give his
only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in him, may not perish,
but may have life everlasting. For God sent not his Son into the

102

world to judge the world, but that the world may be saved b'y him.
He that believes in him is not judged; but he that does not believe
is already judged, because he does not believe in the name of the
only begotten Son of Gk)d ".

10. Idem I. c. 87'2 C, D.

" That one will answer who says : ' He that comes from above,
is above all ' ; and : ' He that comes from heaven, testifies what he
has seen and heard ' ".

John 3, 31 sq. : " He that comes from above is above all. He
that is of the earth, of the earth he is, and of the earth does he
speak. He that comes from heaven, is above all; and what he has
seen and heard, that he testifies, and no man receives his tes-
timony " .

11. Idem. I. c. 873 A.

"He (John the Evangelist) teaches us: ' The Father loves the
Son, and has given all things in his hand. He that believes in the
Son has life everlasting'".

John 3, 36 adds: "but he that does not believe the Son, shall
not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him ".

12. Idem I. c. 873 D.

"He also calls himself the bread of life, saying: 'I am the
bread of life. I am the living bread which came down from
heaven ' ".

John 6, 48-51 : " I am the bread of life. Your fathers did eat
meat in the desert, and are dead. This is the bread which comes
down fr&m heaven, that if any man eat of it, he may mot die. I am
the living bread which came down from heaven ".

13. Idem 1. c. 876 C.

"And continuing he proclaims the excellence of his Father's
glory, saying: 'As the Father has taught me, these things I
speak ' ".

John 8, 28 : " When you shall have lifted up the Son of man,
then shall you know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself;
but as the Father has taught me, these things I speak ".

14. Idem I c. 880 A.

. " (Christ) says : ' The testimony of two men is true. I am one
that gives testimony of myself, and the Father that sent me, gives
testimony of me ' ".

103

John 8, 17: "And in your law it is wrfaten that the testimony
of two men is true etc ".

15. Idem I. c. 881 A.

" And Paul, the divine Apostle, says : ' To us there is one G-od,
the Father, of whom ;are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ,
by whom are all things ' ".

I Cor. 8, 16 : " Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom
are all things, and we unto him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by
whom are all things; and we by him".

16. Idem I. c. 884 A.

"(Paul) says: 'Let this mind be in you, which was also in
Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery
to be equal to God; but emptied himself, taking the form of a
servant, and in habit found as a man } ".

Phil. 2, 7: ". . . but emptied himself, taking the form of a
servant, being made in the likeness of men, and in habit found as
a man ".

17. Idem 1. c. 884 D.

" The same (Apostle) calls him the mediator of God and men,
saying that the law of Moses was given in his hand, concerning
which he says : ' The law, being 'ordained by angels in the hand of
a mediator ; but the mediator is not of one, but God is one ' ".

Gal. 3, 19 sq. : " Why then was the law? It was set because of
transgressions, until the seed should come to whom he made the
promise, being ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator ; now
the mediator is not of one, but God is one".

18. Idem I c. 885 A.

" Moreover, Paul calls him the splendor of glory, and the figure
and Son of God, and heir, saying: 'In these last days, he has
spoken to us in his Son, whom he has appointed heir of all things,
by whom also he made the world, who being the brightness of his
glory and the figure of his substance 5 ". He does not complete
the citation, which in Hebrews 1, 3 continues : " and upholding all
things by the word of his power maJcing purgation of sins, sits on
the right hand of the majesty on high " .

19. Dem. Evang. 3, 5 MG 22 313 D.

"Then keeping on, he (Matthew) gives the catalog of the dis-
ciples, calling himself a publican, when he says : ' The names of

104

the twelve apostles are these: First Simon, who is called Peter
and Andrew his brother, James the Son of Zebedee and John his
brother, Philip and Bartholomew, Thomas and Matthew the
publican ' ".

On reaching this point, he does not care to complete his citation
from Mt. 10, 2 sq. : " and James the son of AlpJifteus, and
Thaddeus, Simon the Cananean, and Judas Iscariot, who also be-
trayed him " .

20. Idem I. c. 216 B.

Same as above. Here he quotes from Luke 6, 31-35; and
wishes to show that Luke places Matthew ahead of Thomas, and
does not call him a publican. Hence he stops after "Matthew
and Thomas".

21. Idem 3, 6 I. c. 224 C.

"His disciples testify that he ordained that they should not
even look at a woman with lust, saying : ' It was said to them of
old etc/'. He omits from Mt. 5, 27 : " You have heard that it was
said to them of old ".

22. Idem 4, 16 I c. 324 B.

"The divine Apostle says: 'Let no one, therefore, judge you
in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a festival day, or new moons,
or sabbaths, which are a shadow of the things to come ' ".

He omits the final clause as irrelevant: "but the body (is) of
Christ" (Coloss, 2, 17).

B. Additions, Combinations, Changes.
1. Ps. 30, 10 MG- 23 26<8 D sq.

" The Savior says : ' He who will drink of the water which I
shall give him, out of his innermost soul (noiXia) shall flow rivers
of living water, springing up into life everlasting ". Here we have
a combination of the words which Christ spoke to the Samaritan
woman at the well of Jacob (John 4, 13 sq.) : "Whosoever drinks
of this water, shall thirst again; but he that ivill drink of the water
which I shall give him, shall not thirst forever ; but the water that
I shall give him, shall become in him a fountain of water, springing
up into life everlasting " ; and the words recorded in John 7, 37
sq. on the occasion of the feast of tabernacles : " If anyone is
thirsty, let him come to me and drink. He that believes in me as

105

the Scripture says, out of his innermost soul (/coiAta) rivers of
living water shall flow " .

2. The same citation with the same phraseology appears in Ps.
92, 3 Ibid. 1189 A.

3. Ps. 60, 6 Ibid. 581 B.

"Again you have the promise of our Savior, when he says:
' And in this world (/ raj atom TOTJTW) he will receive much more
(7roAv7rAaaioj/a A^erat), and in the future world (ev TW //.eAAovrt) he
will possess life everlasting (/cAr/poj/o/^o-ce)".

M t. 19, 29 runs : " And every one that has left house or 'brethren
etc. for my name's sake, shall receive a hundredfold
A^/rerat) and shall possess life everlasting

Lk. 18, 29 has : " There is no man that has left house etc. for
the kingdom of God's sake, who shall not receive much more

(TroAAcwrAao-iova aTro\d(3rj) in this present time (ev rw Kcupw TOU-OJ)

and in the world to come (lv TO> atom TW Ip^opivw} life everlasting ''.
Tatian, the vetus latina, Syrus Sinaiticus, and Curetonianus add
/cA^/aovojUT/o-ei to the text of Luke (cf. Vogels) ; still Eusebius r .s
quotation is a combination of both Luke and Matthew, as is evi-
dent from the verb A^J/KTCU. Then notice the change of eh/ TO> /CCU/DOJ

into ev To> aiwj'i TOVTU> j of ej' TO> atwvi TW ip\op,ivw into iv rw
of TroAAaTrAacrtora into the later form

4. Ps. 36, 26 Ibid. 333 C.

Here we have an abbreviated form of the preceding : " It has
been said by the Savior : ' And in this world (lv TO> atwi/t roura)) he
will receive a hundredfold (eKarovTrAao-tom A^i/K-rai)"-

'EKaroi/TrAaa-tom is again added to the text of Luke by Syrus
Sinaiticus, Curetonianus and 472 (cf. Vogels) ; however the verb
Xrjif/eTai occurs only in Matthew, so that we have another combina-
tion of the two Gospels.

5. Ps. 68, 3 Hid. 729 B.

" When therefore, Jesus had taken the vinegar with gall, he said :
'This Scripture also is fulfilled (Terf\e<rOai) f " .

John 19, 30 has : " When, therefore, Jesus had taken the vinegar,
he said: It is fulfilled (rereAeo-^at)". Consequently the expression:
/<at avrr] fj Tpa<f>r) was added by Eusebius.

6. Ps. 68, 22 Hid. 749 C.

The same citation with the same phraseology as the preceding.

106

7. De Secies. Theol 1, 20 MG 24 872 C.

" The Savior proclaims that he is the leader, saying : ' I am the
light, and the truth, and the life ' ".
John 8, 12 : " I am the light of the world ".
John 15, 6 : "I am the way, and the truth, and the life ".

8. Idem 1, 12 Hid. 848 D.

"(The Savior) among other things has taught us this, saying:
* That which is born of the flesh, is flesh, and that which is born
of the spirit, is spirit; but God is the spirit ' ".

John 3, 6 : " that which is born of the flesh, is flesh ; and that
which is born of the spirit, is spirit ".

John 4, 24: " God is a spirit; and they that adore him, must
adore him in spirit and in truth ".

9. Idem 1, 20 Ibid. 868 D sq.

"(Christ) teaches saying: ' Father, glorify me with the glory,
which I had before the world was, with thee '. And the Father in
answer said : ' And I have glorified and again I shall glorify 9 ".

John 12, 28 : " Father, glorify thy name. A voice therefore,
came from heaven : I have glorified and again I shall glorify ".

John 17, 5 : " And now glorify me, Father, with thyself, with
the glory which I had before the world was, with thee ".

Here we have a marvellous combination of two texts, referring
to two different occasions and to two different contexts. Still that
does not prevent Eusebius from blending them together as if they
were spoken on the same occasion and in the same context.

10. Ps. 61, 6-9 MG 23 593 C.

"As the divine Apostle speaking of the Savior wrote: ' Being
justified freely by his grace, thru the redemption which is in
Christ Jesus, whom God has proposed to be a propitiation thru
faith in his blood ' (exactly as in Eom. 3, 24 sq. altho we notice
that he does not complete the citation) ; and again : ' If anyone
sin, we have an advocate with God, Jesus Christ the Just, and he
is the propitiation for our sins ' ".

The second citation follows on the first as if it, too, were taken
from the " divine Apostle " ; whereas it is taken from I John 2, 1 :
" And if anyone sin, we have an advocate with God, Jesus Christ
the Just, and he is the propitiation for our sins ; and not for ours
only l)ui for those of the whole world".

107

11. Ps. 58, 8. 9 Ibid. 569 C.

" On which account the Savior preached to them first, saying :
'I did not come (%X6ov) except for the lost sheep of the house of
Israel ' ".

Mt. 15, 24: "I was not sent (dTrarroA^v) except for the lost
sheep of the house of Israel ".

12. Ps. 60, 2. 3 Ibid. 576 D.

" Such was Paul, who said: ' For living (<5vTes) in the flesh we
do not war according to the flesh 3 ".

II Cor. 10, 3 : " For walking (irepnraTovvTes) in the flesh, we do
not war according to the flesh ".

13. Ps. 60, 2. 3 Ibid. 577 B.

" Thus (Paul) mourns for many, concerning whom he says :
'I shall mourn many of them, that sinned before, and have not
repented of the sin (d/utpria), and lawlessness (dvo/u'a), and
impiety (dcre/2eta), which they committed 3 ".

II Cor. 12, 21 : " Lest again when I come, God shall humble me
in your regard, so that (KCU) I shall mourn many of them that
sinned before, and have not repented of the uncleanness (aKaOapvia),
and fornication (rropveia*), and lewdness (acreXyeia), which they
committed ".

14. De Theol. Eccles. 1, 20 MG 24 868 A.

"And (God) is light inaccessible, as the divine Apostle teaches,
when he says : ' inhabiting light inaccessible, whom no one has
seen, nor is able to see. But he was in the world enlightening
every man coming into the world 3 ".

First of all we notice that I Tim. 6, 16 has ouSeis dvfycoTrw,
where Eusebius puts merely ouSei's. Moreover, he joins John 1, 9
sq. to I Tim. 6, 16 ; but even the text of John is distorted to suit
his purpose. John 1, 9 sq. reads : " That was the true light, which
enlightens every man coming into the world. He was in the world,
and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not 33 .

15. 7s. 1, 31 Ibid. 101 B.

" Therefore they cannot say like the disciples of Christ : ' We
can do all things in him, who strengthens us, God ' ".

Phil. 4, 13: "I can do all things in him who strengthens me".

108

16. Dem. Evang. 5, 3 M;G 22 368 C.

"And according to the Apostle, when 'he became obedient to
the Father unto death, even the death of the Cross, therefore/ he
says, ' God exalted him, raising him up from the dead, and setting
him on his right hand, above all principality, and power, and vir-
tue, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this
world, but also in that which is to come ' ".

Phil. 2, 8 sq. : "He humbled himself, becoming obedient unto
death, even to the death of the cross ; for which cause God also has
exalted him, and has given him the name which is above all

names ".

Ephes., 1, 20 sq. : "which he wrought in Christ, raising him
up from the dead, and setting him on his right hand in the heav-
enly places, above all principality etc.".

CONCLUSION.

Similar instances of free citations could be multiplied to the
point of nausea, since they litter the pages of Eusebius's writings.
But the foregoing examples show that an author like Eusebius,
who cites text after text and omits words and phrases which do not
fit in with the trend of his thought; who inserts into the Sacred
Text clauses of his own coinage; who fuses together various pas-
sages of the same author, or of different authors, to bring out more
vividly the salient points under discussion, that such an author
cannot be taken as the basis for reconstructing any text of Scrip-
ture, let alone a passage like Mt. 28, 19, which, as E. Eiggenbach
has shown, is incontestably attested by a multitude of witnesses
prior to Eusebius.

Despite the fact that Eusebius was the most learned Scripture
scholar of the early fourth century; despite the fact that he had
at his disposal one of the best libraries of the age, in which Origen
and Pamphilus must have collected manuscripts ante-dating our
oldest uncials by 50-150 years, still his authority in re-establish-
ing the exact form of the original text of the New Testament, is
negligible, if we gauge that authority by the careless citations with
which his writings teem.

Consequently, Conybeare's efforts to discard the baptismal com-
mand from the Gospel of Matthew, because that command is cited
only five times out of 29 in the works which heretofore had always
been ascribed to Eusebius, and his further attempt to brush aside
Eusebius' s authorship of the works in which the textus receptus
occurs, must be set down as complete failures. Even had Conybeare
succeeded in establishing the spuriousness of the five books Contra
Marcellum, the carelessness of the 'Syriac translator of the Theo-
pJiany, and the illegitimacy of the baptismal command in the
Letter to the Church at Caesarea, he would have proved absolutely
nothing. For the notorious omissions, insertions, combinations,
and changes in the citations of Eusebius, undermine the inference
that the baptismal command was not in his text of the New
Testament because he did not cite it in his works.

Were Conybeare to follow his method to its logical conclusion,
he would be forced to reject and to insert many another clause as
unauthentic or authentic, and to shelve many a writing and pas-

109

110

sage of Eusebius as spurious and forged. The omission of the
baptismal command in 24 instances, and the insertion of the
phrase " in my name " in 17 of these, is no more <a proof that the
first is unauthentic and the second authentic, than is the similar
omission and insertion of many another phrase and clause a proof
of their spuriousness or authenticity.

Eusebius in citing Mt. 28, 19 was true to that spirit of unfet-
tered license, which he generously permitted himself in every one
of his writings. When the baptismal command marred the devel-
opment of his thought, he omitted it; when it was needed in the
context, he adduced it. When his subject demanded some con-
firmation over and above the words of Matthew, he sought it in the
sjmoptics; and artfully wove it into the text of Matthew, giving
us the impression that he had found it there. 'This conclusion is
not subjective : it is based on the method used by Eusebius thru all
his writings ; and it adequately accounts for the peculiar citations
of Mt. 28, 19, without putting us to the trouble of dislodging a
time-honored clause from the First Gospel, of introducing in its
stead a hybrid phrase, of disqualifying at least two of Eusebius's
writings as bastard products, and of devising interpolations in
others.

The fact that in spite of his carelessness, Eusebius in five in-
stances in his works quotes the passage exactly as we have it in the
received text, brings the authenticity of Mt. 28, 19 into bold relief.
In the spirit of his Letter to Caesarea, we can .say that Eusebius
had received this text from the bishops before him; it had been
officially imparted to him in his firs't catechesis, and when he had
received baptism; he had learned and studied it from the Divine
Writings; and he had believed the doctrine contained in it, and
preached that doctrine thruout his priestly and episcopal career.

UNIVERSITAS CATHOLICA AMERICAS

WASHINGTON, D. C.

S. FAOULTAS THEOLOGICA, 1922-1923
No. 20

THESES

DEUS LUX MEA

THESES

QUAS
AD DOCTORATUM

SACRA THEOLOGIA

APUD UNIVERSITATEM CATHOLIOAM AMERICAE

CONSEQUENDUM

PUBLICS PROPUGNABIT

BERJSTARDUS HENRICUS CUNEO, 0. P. M.

PROVINCIAE S. BARBARAS, CALIF.
S. THEOL. LIGENTIATUS

THESES

The numbers used in the genealogy of St. Matthew are not inserted by
chance; they are mentioned intentionally, and have a deep, sacred meaning.

The best solution for the omissions in St. Matthew's genealogy is to be
found in the " condemnatio memoriae ", a principle known to the people
of antiquity.

The text of Matthew 1, 16, despite the seemingly contrary reading of
Syrus Sinai ticus, refers to the supernatural birth of Christ.

The pericope of Luke 1, 26-38, despite the objections of higher criticism
and the objections drawn from the comparative study of religions, is
authentic, and refers to the supernatural birth of Christ.

The best solution of the .Synoptic problem seems to be that the evange-
lists made use of pre-gospel sources, which originated at Jerusalem.

The opinion of the earlier scholastics, who tried to escape the seeming
contradiction between the Acts (2, 38; 8, 16; 10, 48; 19, 5) and the Letters
of St. Paul (Gal. 3, 27; Rom. 6, 3) and Mt. 28, 19, by postulating a divine
dispensation for the Apostles to baptise in the name of Jesus alone, must
be rejected as arbitrary and unfounded.,

St. Paul's statement in I Cor. 1, 17 : " Christ sent me not to baptise,
but to preach the Gospel ", does not undermine Christ's command to bap-
tise, as recorded in Mt. 28, 19.

The authenticity of Mt. 28, 19 is established beyond doubt by the over-
whelming testimony of all extant manuscripts and versions.

The interpolation of the text of the Three Witnesses (I John 5, 7 sq.)
cannot be adduced as an argument a pari for the alleged interpolation of
the Lord's command to baptise (Mt. 28, 19).

10.

The opposition of the Apostles to Paul's missionary activity among the
Gentiles (Gal. 2) does not militate against Christ's final commission to
his disciples to preach the Gospel to all the nations.

11.

It cannot be claimed that the doctrine of the universality of salvation
contained in Mt. 28, 19 is a clear instance of historical anachronism, on
the ground that such a doctrine only gradually and at a late period took
the place of the narrow, nationalistic, and particularistic view of the
Jewish disciples.

' 12 '
It cannot be said that the Letter of St. Bernard of Clairvaux to Henry

the Archdeacon is spurious on account of the doctrine which it professes,
scil: that baptism is valid if it is performed with the formula: " Baptizo

9 b 5*

te in nomine Dei et sanctae crucis " since this doctrine is the logical
outcome of the interpretation which Bernard's teacher and friend, Hugo
de St. \ictor, gave to the words of Mt. 28, 19.

13.

The theory that the Apostles made use of a dual form of baptism, a
christological form for the Jews, and a trinitarian form for the Gentiles,
must be rejected on the same ground as the theory of the earlier scholastics.

14.

The " disciplina arcani " cannot be the motive which influenced Eusebius
of Caesarea to omit the baptismal command in 24 instances thruout his
works.

15.

The five citations of the baptismal command in the works of Eusebius
cannot be due to the influence of the Council of Nicaea.

16.

It is rash and unwarranted to maintain that the trinitarian citation of
Mt. 28, 19, which occurs in the Letter of Eusebius to his Church in
Caesarea, was interpolated from the Ariwi Council held at Constantinople
A.D. 341.

17.

The 24 omissions of the baptismal command in the works of Eusebius
are due in each case to the nature of the immediate context.

18.

The five trinitarian citations in Eusebius's works are demanded in each
case by the nature of the immediate context.

19.

The phrase " in my name ", which in 18 instances Eusebius connects
with the parting words of Christ, does not prove that this phrase was an
original part of the Gospel of Matthew; ; it is due to a 'combination of the
texts of Matthew and Luke.

20.

The notorious omissions, combinations, insertions, and changes in Euse-
bius's citations of Holy Writ weaken his authority in reestablishing the
precise, exact form of the original text of the New Testament.

21.

The testimony of various books of the Old Law attest that Moses was
the author of writings of an historical and legislative nature.

22.

From internal criticism of the Pentateuch it is highly probable that
these writings of Moses were carefully preserved, and formed a literary
work, which portrayed the events accompanying the promulgation of the
Mosaic Law, and reproduced the essential contents of the Law.

23.

A number of observations in the Pentateuch of .an historical, geo-
graphical, and archaeological nature date from various periods in post-
Mosaic times, some perhaps from the time .after the exile.

24.

The theory of the Wellhausen school in the greater part of its applica-
tion is untenable.

25.

The Pentateuch must be considered as trustworthy and authoritative in

its narration of historical events.

26.

The Accadian version of the creation, the fall of man, and the deluge,
cannot be taken as the source from which the Bible accounts are derived.

27.

The arguments brought forward against the genuineness of Isaias 40-56,
altho not idle or trivial, are by no means sufficient to disprove the author-
ship of Isaias.

28.

The Ebed-Jahwe pericopes in Is. 42-5 3, as a whole, cannot be interpreted
as references to the : Israelitic people, or to a person living contempo-
raneously with the prophet; they are real prophecies, which reach their
ultimate fulfillment in Christ.

29.

It cannot be maintained that the religion of the patriarchs was a form
of fetichism; or that it in any way sanctioned the worship of idols, or the
sacrifice of human beings.

30.

The religion of the patriarchs was marked by ethical principles of a
high character, and iby ceremonial observances.

31.

The story of St. Peter's vision at Joppe, related in the tenth chapter of
Acts, does not militate against the authenticity of Christ's commission to
the Apostles to make disciples of all the nations, as recorded in Mt. 28, 19.

32.

The Gospel sayings of Jesus plainly indicate that he meant his Church
to possess the threefold authority to teach, rule, and sanctify mankind.

33.

The existence of this authority in the primitive Church is amply re-
vealed in the Epistles of St. Paul.

34.

The New Testament concept of Church 'authority includes the recogni-
tion of infallibility in its exercise.

35.

The Catholic intolerance of doctrinal error is reflected in the Epistles
of St. Paul.

36.

The objection of Higher Criticism against the authenticity or histo-
ricity of Mt. 28, 19, on rthe ground that the dogma of the Trinity which
is there contained, was developed at >a period later than that in which the
First Gospel was written, is futile in view of the fact that this dogma is
clearly taught in other texts of the New Testament.

37.

The New Testament Writings attribute a distinct, divine personality to
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost.

38.

Despite this distinction in personality, the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Ghost have the same identical nature.

39.

The dogma of the Trinity is a mystery which cannot be grasped by
reason; still we cannot maintain that it is contrary to reason.

40.

Light can be shed on the doctrine of the Trinity by arguments from
analogy.

41.

Christian Baptism, as it is described in the Book of Acts, is an insti-
tution essentially distinct from the ceremonial washings of the Jews and
the Gentiles.

42.

In opposition to Harnack and other radical critics, it must be set down
as certain, that Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptism in the New
Law.

43.

It is the unanimous verdict of Tradition that over and above the ablu-
tion with water, an invocation of the Trinity is required in administering
the Sacrament of Baptism.

44.

These two requirements cannot be clearly deduced from the Lord's com-
mand to baptise, as that command is recorded in Mt. 28, 19.

45.

It is not certain that the invocation of the Trinity, which Tradition
postulates as an essential requirement of Baptism, is identical with the
the present baptismal formula: "I baptise thee in the name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ".

46.
Private landownership is a natural right.

47.

The arguments which furnish the basis of Henry George's attack against
private landownsrship, will not stand investigation.

48.

The interest-taker is justified on the grounds of presumption, analogy,
and possession.

49.

Possessors are under strict obligation to give of their surplus wealth to
the indigent.

50.

The laborer has a right to a living wage.

51.

The marriage of baptised persons is regulated not only by divine, but
also by canonical law, the civil power remaining competent in regard to
the civil effects of marriage (canon 10'16).

52.

The supreme civil 'authority most probably has the right of exercising,
with a view to temporal welfare, legislative, judicial, and coercive power
over nori-christian marriages.

53.

The ancient law of the Church, which did not require any special for-
malities for the validity of betrothals, was definitely specified by the
decree " Ne temere " of Pope Pius X, August 2, 1907, and modified by the
New Canon Law.

54.

The pastor is bound in conscience to investigate by personal inquiry
whether the parties to be married give their consent freely, are duly
instructed in Christian Doctrine, and have received the Sacrament of

Baptism and Confirmation; he is likewise bound to investigate, especially
by means of the banns, whether any impediment exist regarding the mar-
riage (canons 1022-1029).

55.

The course to be pursued by a pastor, who after careful investigation is
convinced of the existence of an impediment, or is doubtful of such exist-
ence, is clearly laid down in canon 1031.

56.

The contention of F. C. Conybeare that in the seventh century the entire
Celtic Church administered Baptism in the name of Jesus alone, and was
for this reason cut off from communion with Rome, is not in accordance
with historical truth.

57.

The five books " Contra Marcellum ", written against Marcellus of
Ancyra, are the work of Eusebius of Caesarea, and not of Eusebius of
Emesa, as F. C. Conybeare tried to maintain.

58.

Though chronologically the Franciscans were the first missionaries in
Lower California (1535; 1596), the first real evangelisers of the country
were the Jesuits (1683-1767), who were succeeded on their expulsion by
the Franciscans (1768), who in turn ceded the territory to the Dominicans
(1773-1834).

59.

The evangelisation of Upper California (the present state of California)
is the work of the Franciscan Friars, who entered the new territory in
the year 1769 under the leadership of Junipero Serra.

60.

The secularisation of the Franciscan Missions in Upper California proved
detrimental to the spiritual and the temporal welfare of the California
Indians.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

BERNARD HENRY CUNEO was born November 14, 1895 at Santa
Cruz, California. His primary studies he pursued at ,the public
school of the same city, and at St. Francis School, Watsonville,
California. In 'September, 1906 he entered the preparatory semi-
nary for the Franciscan Order at Santa Barbara, California. After
graduating in June, 1911, he took the habit in the Franciscan Order
at Oakland, California, and after a year of probation, continued his
classical course from July, 1912 .to July, 1913 at the same city.
In the Franciscan seminary at West Park, Ohio, he pursued his
course in Philosophy (1913-1915) and Theology (1915-1918),
completing the latter course at St. Louis, Mo. (1918-1919). From
July, 1919 to September, 1920, he was active as assistant pastor
in the Italian Church of the Immaculate Conception, San Fran-
cisco, California. From September, 1920 to September, 1921, he
taught Greek and English at the preparatory seminary at Santa
Barbara. In October, 1921 he matriculated at the Catholic Uni-
versity of America, where he successfully passed the examinations
for the S. T. B. in the same month, and for the S. T. L. in June,
1922.

PRESS OF 0. H. FURST CO. BALTO.

THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA
NEW TESTAMENT STUDIES

No. I. The Pauline ni2TI2-YIIO2TA2l2, According to Hebr.
XI, 1.

Eev. Michael A. Mathis, C. S. C., S, T. D., Holy Cross
College, Brookland, D. C.

No. II. The Pauline Formula " Induere Christum."

Eev. Leo J. Ohleyer, 0. F. M., S. T. D., 3140 Mera-
mec St., St. Louis, Mo.

No. III. The Boyhood Consciousness of Christ (Luke II, 49).

Eev. Patrick J. Temple, S. T. D., The Macmillan Co.,
New York.

No. IV. St. Paul's Concept of IAA2THPION (Rom. Ill, 25).

Eev. Eomuald A. Mollaun, 0. F. M., S. T. L., 1615
Vine St., Cincinnati, Ohio.

No. V. The Lord's Command to Baptise (Mt. 28, 19).

Eev. Bernard H. Cuneo 0. F. M., S. T. L., The Old
Mission, Santa Barbara, Calif.

'yVj't' 1

' >, - v i

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

[ ] 080 207

*//

> 7 **

*. '.

r THEUNIVE

NIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
RARY

I '080' 20<T

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Lord's command to baptise [microform] ; an historico-critical investigation, with special reference to the works of Eusebius of Caesarea .."

See other formats